Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

International Fisheries Trade Fair

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the results to Scottish trade of participation of Scottish firms and industries in the International Fisheries Trade Fair in Copenhagen in September, 1957; and whether it is his policy to promote a similar international fisheries trade fair in Scotland in 1958.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): My right hon. Friend has no doubt that the display of products sponsored by the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners' Association at last year's Trade Fair in Copenhagen has served to draw attention abroad to the high quality of Aberdeen fish, but he cannot say whether there has been any expansion in trade as a result. My right hon. Friend has passed on to the Scottish Council (Development & Industry) the suggestion that a similar Fair might be promoted in Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask if he realises that Scottish fish, particularly Aberdeen fish, is sold in Africa, Canada, the United States and even in mid-European countries, and an international fair such as I suggest would do much to enlarge the trade, which at present is not as much as it might be?

Lord John Hope: Yes, I agree with the hon. and learned Member.

Landlord and Tenant Bill (Old People)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many old people in Scotland, and of what ages,

will be secured in their homes by his proposed amendment to the law affecting landlord and tenant; and for what periods he estimates they will be so secured.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): My right hon. Friend has no means of making an estimate of this kind. Under the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill, it is for the sheriff to decide the period for which an order for possession may be suspended. The maximum periods are nine months on a first application and six months at any one time on subsequent applications.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is not giving sufficient attention to what is a very urgent social problem? These old people need full and careful attention. Will his Department give attention to this matter to see that these people are properly provided for?

Mr. Browne: The Bill now being discussed in Committee does just that.

Grey Seals

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the discussions he has been having with various interests regarding grey seals have now been completed; and whether he will make a statement.

Lord John Hope: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot yet add to the Answer he gave to my hon. Friend on the 21st March.

Sir J. Duncan: While thanking my noble Friend for that reply, may I ask, if I put down another Question after Whitsuntide, whether he will be able to deal with it?

Lord John Hope: I cannot say when we shall be able to go any further, but I hope it will be very soon.

Farmers (Improvement Grants)

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will adopt the English practice in Scotland of paying grant-aid for drainage, water supplies and similar work direct to contractors and thus relieving small farmers of the burden of finding the whole cost of such improvements, part of which is repayable by grant to them at the present time.

Lord John Hope: It is the normal practice in Scotland to pay the grant to the farmer, but at his request it may be paid direct to the contractor.

Sir J. Duncan: Would it not be a very great help to the small farmer if the payments could be made in all cases to the contractor as that would save the small farmer having to raise the capital, pay for the full cost of the improvement and get it back afterwards? Does my noble Friend recollect that in the Farm Prices Review the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said he would do something for the small farmer? Might this not be one of the things he could do?

Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. This point, among others, is being considered in that context.

Canadian Trade

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the official proposals by the Prime Minister of Canada for the encouragement of reciprocal trade with Great Britain; and what steps he is taking to ensure that Scotland shall secure its due proportion of Canadian trade.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The proposal made by the Prime Minister of Canada is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to keep in close touch with him, and also with anyone else who is working for the expansion of Scottish exports to Canada.

Mr. Hughes: Why does the Minister try to shove this on to the President of the Board of Trade? Does he realise that the Prime Minister of Canada is here handing him an unrivalled opportunity for developing the trade of Scotland and he is neglecting it? Is it not a disgraceful attitude for him to take? Will he try to mend his ways?

Mr. Macpherson: The answer is that it is the constitutional responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade and not of the Secretary of State. It would surely be undesirable to duplicate the very comprehensive organisation of the Board of Trade by setting up Scottish Departments parallel with it.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Secretary of State, in his responsibility for the oversight of Scottish prosperity, call the attention of the Board of Trade to the close connections between the populations of Scotland and Canada and to the fact that more use should be made of this reciprocal friendship in binding the trade of the two nations together? Not enough has been done to utilise the latent reserve of friendship which comes from these sources. More might be done to promote trade between Scotland and Canada, independently of what may be done in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Macpherson: I am quite certain that the President of the Board of Trade is well aware of that. If he had not been aware of it, he would certainly have been made aware of it after his visit to Canada last week.

Smoking (Lung Cancer)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the recent report from the United Nations World Health Organisation showing an increase in the number of deaths from lung cancer during the last eight years, he will take steps to intensify the campaign showing the relationship between this disease and smoking.

Mr. J. N. Browne: Local health authorities and education authorities were asked in June last year to consider taking steps to bring effectively to public notice the opinion in the Medical Research Council Report on Smoking and Lung Cancer. My right hon. Friend is taking steps to assess the results before considering whether further measures can usefully be taken.

Mr. Hamilton: Meanwhile, can the hon. Gentleman say how the Scottish figures of deaths due to lung cancer compare with those produced by the World Health Organisation? Are they higher or lower? Further, can he indicate how many Scottish education authorities are utilising the films which, I understand, are available on this subject?

Mr. Browne: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I would ask him to put down a separate Question. On his second point, I understand that education authorities were asked to inform the Department of the measures taken, that


several have made inquiries about films, and that a B.B.C. film is being made available.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware of the campaign now starting in Edinburgh, following the examination of the population of that city for tuberculosis? He may be aware that those examinations have revealed a number of cases of lung cancer, and that Edinburgh is starting a dramatic campaign on this very subject. Could he not give a little more prompt encouragement to the other authorities to follow suit, because this disease is increasing at a really alarming rate?

Mr. Browne: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but my right hon. Friend feels that we need more information and the views of the local authorities before he decides what more should be done.

Sanatoria

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which sanatoria the regional hospital boards in Scotland have decided to close; and what use they intend to make of them.

Mr. J. N. Browne: In the light of the improved tuberculosis position, regional hospital boards are now considering the future use of those sanatoria which are no longer required for their present purpose. When the necessary local consultations have been completed, my right hon. Friend hopes to make a comprehensive statement on the subject.

Miss Herbison: When giving consideration to these matters, will the Secretary of State make certain that any sanatorium that might become vacant will be used for such purposes as the care of the old people, rather than sending them to mental institutions, or for care of those mentally defective children for whom, at present, there is no institution at all?

Mr. Browne: This is primarily a matter for the boards to decide. They must decide how the resources which are becoming available in terms of staff, finance and buildings can best be used in the future. I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern, which, I think, is shared by all of us. In the present financial situation, it seems likely that boards may find it

necessary to place at least some of these sanatoria on a care-and-maintenance basis for the time being.

Miss Herbison: But, surely, would it not be dreadful to place any of them on a care-and-maintenance basis, when so many old people are spending their last few weeks in mental institutions and so many of our children in Scotland badly need institutional care?

Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady will realise, I think, that for the aged sick small and isolated hospitals are not always so suitable as beds associated with the general hospital, with all its facilities, which may also become available.

Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: May I support the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in making a plea for the provision, wherever possible, and even for short periods and on a temporary basis, of some kind of accommodation for old people, who greatly need it at this time?

Mr. T. Fraser: And may I plead with the Joint Under-Secretary to bear in mind that a few years ago, when there was great need for accommodation for tuberculosis sufferers, arrangements were made to have them treated in Switzerland? There is no longer that need, nor is there the same need for so much accommodation for those suffering from tuberculosis in Scotland, but there is need for hospital accommodation for many other categories, and for these old people, particularly those who are handicapped in some measure. If that be the case, surely it is for the Secretary of State to take the initiative in seeing that the available accommodation is properly used, rather than to leave the matter to the hospital boards, who might well be limited by finance?

Mr. Browne: I have no wish to be obstructive or unsympathetic in this matter, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a matter for the regional boards in the first place. As I have said, my right hon. Friend hopes to make a comprehensive statement on the subject in the fairly near future.

Agricultural Land (Leases)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation which will prevent


landlords resuming possession of land without giving reasonable notice.

Lord John Hope: No, Sir. Resumption in pursuance of a stipulation in a lease is governed—and must, in my right hon. Friend's view, continue to be governed—by the contractual agreement between landlord and tenant.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that a farmer in my constituency recently received a notice for resumption of two of his best fields—ten acres—and that, on the same day, the landlord ploughed up the land for trees? Does he think that that is right?

Lord John Hope: It would be wrong of me, I think, to express any opinion on that case. An arbiter having been called for, the matter is really sub judice.

Princes Pier, Greenock

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in conjunction with the other Ministers concerned, he will now take steps to enable ocean-going liners and large naval ships to berth at Princes Pier, Greenock.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The present berthing facilities at the Princes Pier are the responsibility of the Greenock Harbour Trust. It is for the Trust to formulate any proposals for their improvement.

Dr. Mabon: Will not the hon. Gentleman consider acting in this matter as an economic catalyst, in bringing together all the various interests who might be able to find the money for this work? Is he aware that the last estimate for the work was only £70,000–3d. per head of the population of Scotland—which would repay itself twenty times over if this were done and an added stimulus given to the tourist trade thereby?

Mr. Macpherson: I will convey to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has said, but I would point out that, under existing legislation, the pier, not being an industrial undertaking, is not entitled to aid.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only a few years ago the whole matter was being considered by the Admiralty and others concerned; and that what is required is the blowing up of a rock which at present prevents these ships approaching the Princes Pier at

Greenock? This would be of the greatest service both to ocean-going liners and to naval craft, which could then line up at the pier?

Mr. Macpherson: That is a slightly different point from that in the Question. As I have said, I shall convey to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have said.

Tenancy of Shops Committee

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the Committee appointed to consider the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, will, by way of public advertisement, invite evidence from appropriate organisations and individuals.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Committee has itself taken the necessary action, both by communicating with particular organisations likely to be interested in the inquiry and by issuing a Press notice offering to consider evidence from any other body or person who might wish to give it.

Mr. McInnes: Is not the Joint Under-Secretary aware that that method is rather circumscribed in its operation and denies to tens of thousands of small shopkeepers who may not have observed the Press advertisement the opportunity of submitting evidence on this very important matter?

Mr. Macpherson: Not only was there a general advertisement, but invitations were issued to local authority associations, legal societies, chambers of commerce, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, numerous associations of traders and a number of other bodies. However, if anybody feels they would like to give evidence, they should communicate with the Secretary of the Tenancy of Shops Committee, Room 370. St. Andvew's House, Edinburgh.

Local Taxation

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission or other responsible independent committee to examine the possibility and practicability of alternative sources of local taxation.

Mr. J. N. Browne: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not think that any useful purpose would be served by instituting a further inquiry into this matter.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last inquiry into this matter took place over thirty years ago? Why does his right hon. Friend now consider that that evidence is applicable to today's situation? Surely he is fully conscious—though, perhaps, that is somewhat doubtful—of the situation that exists as a result of Government legislation. Does he not agree that, when local authority revenues are being diminished year by year, it is absolutely essential that they should have some other form of revenue, such as would be likely to result from the recommendations of a Committee like this?

Mr. Browne: No, Sir. The Government consider that every inquiry has already been made.

Tourist Industry (Committee)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings have been held by the special committee established by him to assist the tourist industry in Scotland; and what suggestions and recommendations it has made.

Mr. N. Macpherson: One meeting has been held, at which nearly a dozen Government Departments in Scotland, transport interests and the Scottish Tourist Board were represented; and it is proposed to hold further meetings at regular intervals.
The questions discussed included the improvement of transport facilities for tourists and of standards of accommodation; the further development of tourist attractions, such as bus tours, angling and pony-trekking; and the promotion of such tourist aids as sign-posting of beauty spots and the provision of lay-bys.

Mr. Hoy: We are grateful for that reply, but might not the matter raised in Question No. 12 today by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) be a suitable subject for placing on the agenda for the next meeting?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend will give consideration to that point.

Scottish Tourist Board

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the meagre contributions of some local authorities to the Scottish Tourist Board; and whether he will help to extend its work by encouraging reasonable contributions from each council.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My noble Friend the Minister of State drew attention to this matter in his address to the Tourist Association of Scotland on 25th April. My right hon. Friend trusts that local authorities will note what my noble Friend said.

Mr. Woodburn: I welcome the noble Lord's contribution in this matter, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Tourist Board is working on a mere bagatelle compared with, let us say, the Isle of Man, which spends on advertising the Isle of Man about six times what the Scottish Tourist Board has to spend? Should not a country which has some of the most beautiful tourist facilities in the world spend some money, and would it not be a good investment to make the tourist attractions of Scotland better known? Will the hon. Gentleman try to get some additional help for the Tourist Board in this good work?

Mr. Macpherson: I am sure that we are extremely grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's strong support in encouraging local authorities to make more generous contributions to the Scottish Tourist Board.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the wide range of services given to Scotland by the Scottish Tourist Board; and whether he will enable this work to be extended by additional grants for their work directly or indirectly from public funds.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is very well aware of the valuable services given to Scotland by the Scottish Tourist Board. The Board receives payments from the British Travel and Holiday Association for overseas publicity work which it undertakes for the Association, but it is an independent body and has never sought direct financial assistance from the Government.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason that there is an independent body is that, in publicity abroad, it would probably be tied down to the Goschen formula, which, in this case, is not acceptable? Will he agree that Scotland has quite special offerings to make in the tourist trade, and that these things ought to be done in a friendly competitive spirit between Scotland and England?
Further, is he aware that the Travel Association is making no grants at all towards film publicity for the beauties of Scotland, and that that would be one of the best ways to make Scotland attractive abroad? Is he aware also that we are indebted to private enterprise in this connection for producing some very beautiful films of Scotland, but that a great deal more ought to be done, especially for the Tourist Board?

Mr. Macpherson: I should like to associate my right hon. Friend with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the films produced. Again, however, I think that it would be most unwise to attempt to duplicate the network which the Board of Trade has abroad by special Scottish representation.

Rents (Increases)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that private landlords are increasing the rents of houses by more than 800 per cent., even when such houses are under £40 rateable value; and if he will introduce legislation to limit such increases to reasonable proportions.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to houses in Prinlaws. I can only repeat that, if they have not already done so, the tenants concerned should take legal advice on the question whether the Rent Restrictions Acts apply to their tenancies. The matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend has any standing to intervene.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; it is Prinlaws about which I am concerned. How can he possibly justify colossal increases in rent of this nature on houses which are well over a hundred years old, which have no amenities whatever and are being operated by some of the biggest scoundrels in the business? Will the hon.

Gentleman not just sit aside and say that it is a matter between landlord and tenant? Does he not realise that the tenants have had to take collections at the pit heads in order to collect money to fight the cases in the courts? How can the Government possibly stand aside if they believe in social justice at all?

Mr. Browne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, both my right hon. Friend and the local authorities have watched this matter very closely——

Mr. Hamilton: That is all they have done.

Mr. Browne: —but the issues are not for my right hon. Friend to pronounce upon. What is involved is a matter between landlord and tenant which may have to be decided in the courts.

New Towns

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the reasons which guided him in deciding not to sanction another new town in Scotland.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of 4th March to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).

Mr. Rankin: Is the Joint Under-Secretary not aware that, since then, another voice has spoken and given a different decision? Is he not aware that the Minister of State has declared that there will not be another new town in Scotland? If that is the case, does he not appreciate that Glenrothes plus the tiny rivulets of overspill promoted under recent legislation will not solve Glasgow's housing problem in a hundred years. Is that what the hon. Gentleman wants?

Mr. Browne: I am afraid that I must correct the hon. Gentleman. We all speak with one voice in Scotland. My noble Friend the Minister of State has had very recent discussions with the Glasgow Corporation on this subject, and he then reaffirmed the Government's view that a further new town for Glasgow overspill is not excluded but that now is not the appropriate time to initiate another project on this scale.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell me the difference between what I said and what the Minister is now saying?

Mr. Speaker: I am not concerned with those differences.

Mr. Rankin: In view of that, I must give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Health Visitors

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the additional number of recruits necessary to bring the health visitors service up to required strength; and when he will announce his decisions in respect of the recommendations of the Working Party Report.

Mr. J. N. Browne: At the end of 1957, the staff employed in Scotland on health visiting duties corresponded almost exactly with the number recommended by the Working Party. Other recommendations are still being considered in consultation with the bodies concerned, and my right hon. Friend is not yet able to announce decisions.

Mr. Hannan: The hon. Gentleman is aware that this Report was tendered to the Government two years ago. Is he aware of the growing volume of opinion in medical circles that a strong health visitor service would go a long way to help the prevention of mental illness, which is now one of the principal problems confronting the Health Service?

Mr. Browne: Yes, Sir; this is an important matter, and we shall try to complete the consultations as soon as possible.

Commission Agents' Shops

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to assist local authorities following his consideration of the serious problem of turf commission agents' shops being used for illegal betting.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has so far been unable to discover any action that he can usefully take. He will be glad to consider the matter further in the light of any representations he may receive from local authorities, and my noble Friend the Minister of State is arranging to discuss one aspect of it with representatives of Dunbarton County Council at an early date.

Mr. Hannan: In a previous Answer, the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend stated that the seriousness of the problem was recognised. Is it right that the time of public officers, such as police officers and health officers, should be squandered in visiting places of this character before licences are issued in respect of premises which are going to be used for illegal purposes?

Mr. Macpherson: Planning permission, of course, is given on planning grounds. Whether the premises are to be used for illegal purposes would have to be considered on its merits.

Mr. Hannan: But, surely, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are aware that, when applications are tendered, it is known for what purposes the premises are going to be used? Is it not the duty of the Secretary of State for Scotland to find some way of helping local authorities to control this sordid business?

Mr. Macpherson: Not all turf commission agents are carrying on an illegal business. The matter has to be considered on its merits.

Old Age Disabilities (Notification)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult local authorities and other interested organisations with a view to making disabilities associated with old age notifiable to the local health department so that remedial action can be taken.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I believe that notification would involve a degree of supervision that many old people might resent. But my right hon. Friend is constantly seeking ways to improve their situation.

Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the opinion of the medical officer of health for the County of Fife in which he stated that it would be in the old people's interests and the community's interests at large if it were the responsibility of doctors, for example, merely to pass on information to the voluntary organisations or to the local authorities that some old people were in need even of company or visitation or advice? Too many cases are left to sheer chance to be found out by the public.

Mr. Browne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious


problem. My own feeling is that this is a great national problem in which we all, as neighbours, friends, voluntary helpers, paid visitors, doctors, officials or Government, should play our part. I believe the solution lies in co-ordinated action by all concerned.

Technical Education (Sandwich Courses)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he is taking to stimulate the extension of sandwich courses in technical education.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The central institutions have been encouraged to expand all their advanced courses in science and technology, both sandwich and full time. In the last two years the number taking sandwich courses has increased from 800 to 1,000.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the fact that in England the number taking these sandwich courses has doubled in the past two years and there are now in England plans on foot for the quadrupling of the present number of courses and students, will the Under-Secretary ensure that we do not fall any further behind England than we are at present in this respect?

Mr. Macpherson: But we are not behind England in this matter. We had a long start on England, and proportionately there are far more sandwich courses in Scotland than in England.

Nursery Schools

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursery schools run by voluntary organisations receive grants from local education authorities; and where these schools are situated.

Mr. N. Macpherson: There are eight nursery schools run by voluntary organisations which receive contributions from education authorities. Six of these schools are in Edinburgh, one in Fife and one in Moray. There is also a nursery school in Banffshire which receives both grant from central funds and a contribution through the local authority.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that most of those schools cater for children from the poorest homes economically, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the decision that has

been made in the light of the information which he himself gave us in Committee last week?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has already given an undertaking to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) to reconsider this matter.

National Service (Lecturers)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lecturers in central institutions have been called up for military service during the last twelve months.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I am asking each of the central institutions for the information and I shall write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that in Dundee Technical College a lecturer in mathematics has been called up despite all the efforts of the governors of the college to prevent it? Is it not absolutely ridiculous that lecturers in mathematics and science in technical colleges should continue to be called up when we desperately need more technicians and technologists?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the hon. Gentleman on this matter and has explained that the first priority must be to reserve teachers for secondary schools, which form the basis of further technical education.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not ridiculous to cut off the source of these teachers? If the tuition for these teachers does not exist, it will not be possible to keep the flow of teachers going to secondary institutions. Surely this is a ridiculous situation.

Mr. Macpherson: Graduates in mathematics, science or engineering who take posts in central institutions are eligible for deferment if they hold first-class honours degrees, or hold second-class honours degrees and have subsequently taken higher degrees.

Sir J. Duncan: Can the Minister say whether there is a shortage of mathematics and science teachers at technical colleges? If there is, will he review the previous decision of the Government and take


steps to release these people from military service?

Mr. Macpherson: The arrangements for deferment are reviewed annually by the Minister of Labour's Technical Personnel Committee.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Distribution of Industry Bill (Highlands and Islands)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will prepare plans so that the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Bill may be used to assist the extension or establishment of businesses in the Highlands and Islands which will give employment and use local resources;
(2) if he will make it clear that public bodies which have the necessary powers and operate in circumstances where the Distribution of Industry Bill applies should prepare to use its provisions for the assistance of local industry in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is asking my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to bear in mind the needs of the Highlands and Islands in connection with the Bill. I am sure that public bodies and others interested are following the course of the Bill in Parliament and will make their plans accordingly.

Mr. Grimond: Whilst being grateful for what the Minister is saying to his right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he is aware of the great difficulty which small firms have had in the past in taking advantage of the established ways of getting capital, and if he will ensure that the procedure is such that they will benefit under the Bill? As far as public bodies are concerned, would not this be an admirable chance for giving some of these bodies the powers and finance that they need to start them on development work, which is so much needed in the Highlands today?

Mr. Macpherson: I think it would be inappropriate for me to deal in detail by question and answer with the effects

of a Bill now before the House, but we will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Consumer Standards

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement concerning the response made by manufacturers to proposals made by the Consumer Advisory Council of the British Standards Institution on standards of quality.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): There have been no important developments since the hon. Lady raised this matter in February, but I understand that current discussions with manufacturers are proceeding satisfactorily.

Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that my information is not the same as his with regard to the satisfactory proceedings? Might I ask him what he thinks the B.S.I. should do in view of the fact that shoe manufacturers have completely refused co-operation with the Institution over this matter of children's shoes?

Mr. Erroll: I understand that the hon. Lady visited the headquarters of the B.S.I. this morning, when I hope she was able to put these points to the officials concerned.

Miss Burton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary—who is obviously as well informed as I am—stop evading the issue? Are the Government prepared to give the B.S.I. the power when an industry refuses co-operation on a matter of consumer standards'? Will he agree that the B.S.I. should state publicly in newspapers which manufacturers will not co-operate?

Mr. Erroll: That is matter for the B.S.I. to decide for itself.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning the formal discussions which have taken place between the British Standards Institution and the Consumer Research Association on the proposed merger of the Consumer Advisory Council and the Consumer Research


Association; and what effect the result will have on the Government grant given to the Consumer Advisory Council.

Mr. Erroll: I understand that the two bodies have decided not to pursue at present the suggested merger; the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Miss Burton: While being glad that the merger did not arise, because I do not think the time is opportune, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees that the time has now arrived when the whole future of consumer work in this country should be reconsidered?

Mr. Erroll: I think that consumer work is receiving very adequate consideration by these bodies at present.

Merchandise (Guarantees and Certification Marks)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has further considered the suggestion that guarantees and certification marks advertised to the public should be registered and adequately inspected; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Erroll: The registration of guarantees would in itself neither help a purchaser to enforce a contract nor ensure that they were of positive value, and it would be impracticable for the registrar to decide by inspection the merits of any guarantee.

Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that each Answer today has made it obvious that until we get rid of this Government we shall not make any progress in this matter? Is he not aware that a lot of these seals which are exhibited on various merchandise are entirely meaningless? Would it not be better if those seals were not allowed to be exhibited except under certain inspection and safeguards?

Mr. Erroll: I think that the buying public is more intelligent than the hon. Lady possibly realises.

Film Quota

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade with what organised bodies in the film industry and cinema trade he has had consultations about the future of quota legislation; and what proposals he now has under consideration.

Mr. Erroll: Since the list of bodies consulted is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend is considering a substantial number of proposals of varying importance which bear on nearly every section of the Cinematograph Films Acts, 1938 and 1948.

Mr. Swingler: These consultations and considerations have been going on now for over twelve months. Most of the proposals of the organisations are well known and it is a question of the Government making up their mind. As film quota legislation is now long overdue, will the Parliamentary Secretary state when the Bill will be brought forward?

Mr. Erroll: No; I cannot make any such statement at present.

Following is the list:
The Cinematograph Films Council.
The Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians.
The Association of Independent Cinemas.
The Association of Specialised Film Producers.
The British Actors' Equity Association.
The British Film Producers Association.
The British Screen and Television Writers' Association.
The Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association
The Electrical Trades Union.
The Federation of British Film Makers.
The Film Artistes Association.
The Kinematograph Renters' Society.
The Musicians' Union.
The Newsreel Association of Great Britain and Ireland.
The National Association of Theatrical and Kine Employees.
The Society of Cinema Managers of Great Britain and Ireland.

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will bring forward proposals to continue and amend film quota legislation.

Mr. Erroll: Legislation will need to be introduced not later than the 1959–60 Session.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary state definitely whether it will be introduced this Session, or has a decision been taken to postpone it to the eleventh hour and introduce a quota Bill next Session?

Mr. Erroll: It will be introduced at the appropriate time.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and North-West Durham (Unemployment)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that unemployment in Newcastle-under-Lyme is substantially higher than the national average; and what steps are being taken to provide more opportunities for work.

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of the present unemployment position in the area. The facilities for establishing new industry in the area and in North Staffordshire generally continue to be brought to the notice of industrialists.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend recognise that the high level of unemployment now in Newcastle-under-Lyme and North Staffordshire generally is due to the de-dine in the building trade, the contraction of the pottery industry and the closing of the Swynnerton Royal Ordnance Factory, all of which are due to Government policy? Will he, therefore, consider whether some positive action should be taken by the Government in order to bring employment to those whom the Government have displaced?

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend is keeping a close watch on the position.

Mr. Ainsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the largest limestone quarry in the Weardale rural district, County Durham, employing some 70 men, is to close down, and that 25 men at the Wolsingham steel works in the same area have been given notice; and, with no prospect of other employment in the area, what arrangements he is making to bring additional employment into North-West Durham.

Mr. Erroll: I understand that some of the quarry workers have already found other employment. No special action is proposed to bring additional employment to the district.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the Minister aware that this is the problem area of the North-East Development Area and that Professor Dayhish, of Durham University, has spoken of the declining opportunity in industry, both for young people and adults, in mining, in quarrying and in the steel industry, from which people are now on short time or are signing on at

the employment exchange? How long are we to wait for the Government to do something? Must we wait until somebody else like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) can attend to the area?

Mr. Erroll: The position is not as black as the hon. Member has indicated. In fact, employment opportunities in the area as a whole are satisfactory.

Personal Credit Transactions (Prosecution)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on his investigations into the trading practices of certain hire purchase and personal credit firms in Scotland; and whether any prosecutions have yet taken place or are contemplated.

Mr. Erroll: Criminal proceedings have been instituted in Scotland in regard to certain personal credit transactions. The case is at present before the courts and will come up again tomorrow.

Exports to China (Copper Wire)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he is taking to relax strategic restrictions on the export of copper wire from the United Kingdom to China.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): Since the beginning of this year, limited quantities of copper wire have been licensed for export to China. The Chinese authorities have been informed that further limited quantites will be authorised in July against firm orders.

Mr. Jay: From his own industrial experience, does the Minister of State really believe that these restrictions are really necessary?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Our only obligation at present to our partners in the Paris Group is to watch how the trade is developing. If at the end of the review we consider that no further form of embargo is necessary, we shall, of course, remove our restrictions.

Mr. Gaitskell: If it is reasonable to allow limited quantities of copper wire, why should not larger quantities be allowed?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If in due course, in July, the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, he may find that the "limited" is not quite so limited.

Purchase Tax Reductions (Prices)

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade, as a result of his examination of the particular examples submitted to him, if he will now make a personal study of the extent to which retailers are passing on reductions in Purchase Tax to their customers.

Mr. Erroll: I have considered the examples which the hon. Lady has sent. In at least one case the complaint seems to be due to a misunderstanding, because Purchase Tax is levied on the wholesale value of the goods and a reduction of 30 per cent. of the tax will lower the retail price by a very much smaller percentage, which depends on the size of the retail mark-up.
In other cases, it appears that the price reductions which have been made have not reflected the whole of the reduction in Purchase Tax, possibly because the manufacturers have taken the opportunity to make increases in price which would have had to come anyway because of higher costs. I have seen nothing to suggest thet action of this kind has been widespread. The hon. Lady's examples were confined to the products of some half-a-dozen firms. If the public consider that firms which act in this way are giving them worse value than their competitors, they will no doubt follow the example of one of the hon. Lady's correspondents and stop buying the products of these manufacturers.

Mrs. Mann: The Parliamentary Secretary has said nothing at all about retailers passing on these reductions. I now want to ask him whether he approached the Daily Mirror to say that he was accepting my offer to go shopping. Did he arrange that the Daily Mirror should negotiate with me to be accompanied by a reporter and a camera and Press men? If all this was done without informing me in any way, is it not contrary to Parliamentary practice for the hon. Gentleman to act in that way?

Mr. Erroll: I did ring up the newspapers, because it criticised my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his apparent failure to accept

the hon. Lady's invitation. I rang up the newspaper, mentioned that the President was on the point of leaving for America, and said that I was willing to accept in his place. Needless to say, I intended no discourtesy to the hon. Lady, and I am sorry that I did not telephone her first.

Children's Films

Dr. King: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will exempt films made to be shown to children from import duty.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The Board has not received any request to exempt children's films from import duty. If a request is made it will be considered.

Dr. King: Will the Minister take it that the request is being made by this Question? A limited number of excellent children's films are being made in various countries, but children's film shows are short of really good material. All who are keen about the welfare of children would support this request that the Minister should exempt from import duty the special children's films made in foreign countries.

New Zealand Butter

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further action he is taking about New Zealand butter imports.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations informed the New Zealand Deputy-Prime Minister on Thursday last, this matter is being given urgent consideration by the Ministers concerned and a statement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Lipton: In the light of the unfair dumping which is now taking place, is not this continued dithering by the Government another gross betrayal of Commonwealth interests and of our loyal friends in New Zealand, whose help we are only too glad to obtain in time of war but whom we are at the moment treating very shabbily?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The hon. Member might take his cue from the very helpful and characteristically generous statement of the Prime Minister of New Zealand on 1st May, in which he said


that there was no truth in the report that the trade negotiations were being broken off. He showed a greater awareness of the difficulties and complexities of the situation.

Mr. Lipton: When will the Government do something?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Musical Instruments (Tax)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revenue received during the year 1957–58 on musical instruments, the estimated revenue during the year 1958–59, and the estimated revenue in a full year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Receipts of Purchase Tax on musical instruments, excluding gramophones, radio-gramophones, record players and records, were about £750,000 in 1957–58; and the estimated receipts for 1958–59 and for a full year at current rates of tax are £500,000 and £400,000, respectively.

Oil Heaters (Tax)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates he will receive from the Purchase Tax on electric and gas fires and oil heaters; and how much of this he estimates will be obtained by the tax on oil heaters.

Mr. Amory: About £4½ million in 1958–59 of which oil heaters account for about £1½ million.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Chancellor aware that the proposed tax on oil heaters will fall chiefly upon those hardest hit by inflation and rising prices and those who cannot afford the ever-increasing cost of coal, gas and electricity? Could he not look at the tax on oil heaters again to see if he could help that deserving section?

Mr. Amory: The object of this was to remove anomalies and the discrimination against electric and gas heaters, but we shall have an opportunity shortly of discussing all these matters.

Income Tax

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in a full financial year under his new exemption limits for

Income Tax for the aged, would be the Income Tax due from a married couple whose sole income was from investments which equalled £450, and their age was 65 years; and what would be the Income Tax due where the sole income was the same from investments but they were only 50 years old.

Mr. Amory: Five pounds and £42 7s. 6d., respectively.

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in a full financial year, would be the Income Tax due from a married wage earner with an income of £450.

Mr. Amory: Eighteen pounds, twelve shillings and sixpence if both the taxpayer and his wife are under 65; and £5 if either is 65 or over.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that in these new regulations he is making the worker who is earning the same amount of money is worse off to the extent of nearly £40?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Gentleman will know that the intention of these concessions is to treat the small incomes of elderly people as if they were pensions and, therefore, as earned income.

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in a full financial year, under his new proposals, will be the Income Tax due from a married couple aged 65 years whose only income is £810 from investments; what will the Income Tax be for a married couple aged 50 years whose only income is £810 from investments; and what would be the Income Tax for a wage earner married with the same income.

Mr. Amory: One hundred and eight pounds, eight shillings and tenpence, £182 5s. and £105 15s., respectively.

Mr. McKay: Is the Chancellor aware that when we are taking these matters into consideration we must recollect that the worker has to pay £26 in insurance, that he has wear and tear of clothing over and above other people, and, therefore, to that extent, we are really making the pensioner better off than the worker receiving the same amount in wages?

Mr. Amory: Again, I think we shall have an opportunity shortly of discussing these matters.

Prices

Mr. Braine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that there is now an opportunity to halt and reverse the trend of rising prices, whether he will now make a specific appeal to manufacturers and others to reduce prices wherever possible.

Mr. Amory: I shall continue to urge all concerned to seize the present opportunity of keeping down the level of our costs and prices.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since I put down this Question one of the chief shoe manufacturers in the country has announced that the prices of its products in the shops will be reduced by between 10 and 20 per cent., and that this is part of a general trend? Is there any way in which my right hon. Friend can bring this to the notice of other manufacturers?

Mr. Amory: I am very glad to hear of the instance which my hon. Friend quotes, and I hope the example will be followed on as wide a scale as possible. I will consider the point he has mentioned, as to whether there is any further opportunity I can take of calling the attention of industry generally to this very desirable trend.

Egypt (Expelled British Subjects)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new proposals he has to make concerning the compensation of British subjects for the losses incurred by them when they were expelled from Egypt in 1956; and what are his intentions with regard to the release of Egypt's sterling balances following the agreement between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company.

Mr. Amory: I have no new proposals to announce at present. The Egyptian Government are still considering proposals put to them in February and March of this year. No question of making a special release from Egypt's sterling balances will arise until the present negotiations with Egypt for the settlement of claims for compensation for British citizens have been concluded.

Mr. Peyton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these people have shown a patience almost as great as the losses

and hardship they have suffered, and I am sure he will be aware that they are looking to him still with some hope that their very just claims will be met as soon as possible?

Mr. Amory: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind the claims of those officials, formerly employed by the Egyptian Government, who were dismissed in 1951?

Mr. Amory: I will take that into account.

Mr. Monslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that a large Egyptian market has been lost which has caused a volume of unemployment in the country, particularly in the steel industry?

Mr. Amory: I will take all relevant factors into account.

EURATOM

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what developments have taken place recently which are likely to bring about the United Kingdom joining Euratom.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 22nd April to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

Mr. Roberts: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a definite bias in Euratom which is not in favour of the United Kingdom? Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is time we displayed more interest in this organisation and appointed a representative to it?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This is a somewhat complicated matter. As I explained, we have at present bilateral agreements with all the members of the Euratom combination. We are studying whether we could make a further association with them collectively.

MALTA

Mr. Awbery: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the apparent deadlock in the Malta negotiations and the


rapidly deteriorating feeling which may lead to serious disturbances, he will recall the Round Table Conference to consider the position or invite an outside body to arbitrate on the position.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has said, the constitutional process must now be allowed to work itself out.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Prime Minister aware that we have had some serious storms in Malta recently and that each storm seems to get worse than the one before? Mutual recrimination will lead us nowhere. Will the Prime Minister appoint an intermediary to come between the Colonial Secretary and the ex-Prime Minister of Malta, so that we can come to a settlement in this dispute on the island?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that that would be a useful procedure.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Prime Minister (1) what restrictions have been made on the use of air space by foreign aircraft in the area of Christmas Island during the current series of British nuclear weapons tests;
(2) what warnings and notices have been given to foreign countries in connection with the current series of British nuclear weapons tests on the high seas; and what orders have been given by Her Majesty's Government in regard to action to be taken if foreign ships or aircraft enter the area of the high seas when the tests are being made;
(3) what areas of the high seas in the area of Christmas Island are not open to foreign shipping during the carrying out of the current series of British nuclear weapons tests; and for how long.

The Prime Minister: All foreign diplomatic missions in London were informed on 24th April that an area of approximately 200 nautical miles square around Christmas Island would be dangerous to ships and aircraft on account of nuclear weapons tests from 26th April until further notice. Representatives of Commonwealth countries and the High Commissioner Western Pacific were also informed. Shipping and aircraft were also

warned direct by Admiralty and Air Ministry announcements on 24th April. The notice was withdrawn on 3rd May.
In addition, permission for ships unconnected with the test to enter the territorial waters around Christmas Island is suspended. Similarly permission is not granted for aircraft unconnected with the tests to overfly Christmas Island and its territorial waters.
A careful search is made within the area before a test, for any shipping or aircraft which might inadvertently have entered it and be in danger. If any were discovered they would be advised to leave the danger area at once.

Mr. Jones: Is last Saturday's lifting of our ban on navigation in the Christmas Island area permanent or only temporary? If it is permanent, does it mean that the Government have decided to abandon further nuclear tests, and in view of the temporary abandonment—at the very least—of that prohibition on navigation, is this not an appropriate moment for the British Government to say that they will suspend further nuclear tests, at least until the taking place of the summit talks?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. As I have explained, the notice was given on a certain date and it was removed on 3rd May. This was because that test was completed.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Shinwell.

Mr. Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have three Questions on the Order Paper on this matter. May I ask the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: In the circumstances, if the hon. Member has another Question, I will allow him to put it.

Mr. Jones: I am much obliged, Sir. Does not the question I have asked, as to whether this raising of the ban on navigation in the area is temporary or permanent, arise directly from the terms of my Questions Nos. 51 and 52, and is this not a most important matter for the Prime Minister to make a statement upon?

The Prime Minister: Of course, it is an important matter, but I think I have answered the Questions. The Questions are specific; I have tried to answer them


specifically, and I have given the facts. If by any mistake I have not done so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down another Question and I will do my best to answer it.

HYDROGEN BOMB

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether an hydrogen bomb of British manufacture is now in the possession of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether it would be possible to ascertain, or, perhaps, I suppose he would not care to tell me, whether we have more than one hydrogen bomb, and, if so, whether those bombs are operationally available?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience, knows what goes on. I must make the choice that I would rather make no further statement than answer the Question.

DEFENCE SERVICES (CO-ORDINATION)

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Prime Minister, whether he will now state, further than his statement on 23rd July, 1957, what measures have been taken to secure more effective co-ordination between the three Services in the central administrative organisation of defence.

The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Smell Nuisance, Tees-side

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the technical and scientific terminology contained in page 9 of the 94th Report on Alkali, &c., Works, 1957, makes it difficult to understand; whether he will issue a précis of the page in simpler terms; and whether he will give the latest information about the steps

taken to prevent a recurrence of the tomcat smell in Tees-side this year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): This is a highly technical problem, and I fear that any explanation must inevitably be a little scientific. But I am sending to the hon. Member a further explanation of the position.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the last part of the Question, whether the smell will come back this year or not? I see that the Prime Minister has already left the Chamber. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister about this smell which afflicted him when he made a speech on Stockton race-course last summer?

Mr. Bevins: I think that when the hon. Gentleman has the further information which I will give him, and which I will gladly discuss, perhaps we shall both understand.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Government Quarters (Allocation)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government of Kenya have yet considered proposals for the allocation of Government quarters on a non-racial basis; and what practical steps are contemplated to implement such proposals.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Detailed Government proposals which would abolish allocation of quarters on a racial basis were put before the Central Whitley Council in February. The staff side of the Council could not accept them as they stood, and are hoping to produce alternative proposals.

Mrs. Castle: But is the Minister aware that it is now over a year ago since the Governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, pointed out that there are many Africans advancing in the Civil Service, and that it would be wrong to expect them to accept housing on a lower level than that of Europeans in similar jobs, and is not there a tremendous delay in carrying out the important principle of multi-racialism?

Mr. Alport: The Government of Kenya have accepted the principle that quarters should be allotted on a nonracial basis. In the meantime, a number


of senior African civil servants are being housed in European-type quarters on an ad hoc basis. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the best thing would be to leave this matter to voluntary agreement with the staff side, through the Whitley Council machinery.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): The following rearrangement of business has been discussed and agreed through the usual channels:
The Opposition motion of censure on the London omnibus strike will be debated on Thursday of this week.
The Second Reading of the Finance Bill will now be taken on Monday of next week, and it may be for the convenience of the House to know that it will be necessary for us to begin the Com-

mittee stage of the Finance Bill on Monday. 19th May.

BILL PRESENTED

COSTS OF LEASES

Bill to make provision for the incidence of the costs of leases, presented by Mr. West; supported by Mr. Ness Edwards, Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Moyle, Mr. Wade, Mr. Janner, Sir Robert Cary, Mr. Iorwerth Thomas, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Francis Noel-Baker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Local Government Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 5th May.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(GENERAL GRANTS.)

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 16, at the end to insert:
Provided that for the year 1961–62 and each subsequent year the amount of the general grant payable to any recipient authority shall not be such that by reason of it a loss, ascertained in the manner set out in section fifteen of this Act, accrues to any rating authority.—[Sir T. Low.]

Question again proposed.

3.35 p.m.

Sir Toby Low: In view of what my right hon. Friend the Minister said yesterday, and after further consideration of the matter and seeing his words in HANSARD, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] and to continue the discussion of the real points of principle in the Clause dealing with transitional provisions to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Last evening I was falsely accused of being unfair to the right hon. Gentleman when I suggested that when we debate this matter in Committee and on Second Reading there was not the same pressure upon him as there was last evening. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends took up much time in Committee—where we are limited in our debate—and many of my hon. Friends were prevented then, as they were yesterday, from taking part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) quite rightly abstained from voting after the Second Reading debate. Last night, I challenged the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) and his hon. Friends to carry their thoughts and expressions to their logical conclusion. It is fairly obvious that this is a sham, and that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know it. If they really want to make a challenge they should not withdraw the Amendment but should force the matter to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 0, Noes 218.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9.—(RATING OF INDUSTRIAL AND FREIGHT-TRANSPORT HEREDITAMENTS.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, to leave out "fraction of".

The Chairman: All the Amendments on Clause 9 may be taken together.

Mr. Bottomley: I agree, Sir Charles, that all these Amendments may be taken together, as they are concerned with the rerating of industry.
Having noted that, in the last Division, there were 100 abstentions on the Government side, I am quite sure that, on the question of the rerating of industry, on which I know that some hon. Gentlemen have had telegrams from their local authorities in support of these Amendments, they will, therefore, consider doing so, or, like their other hon. Friends, refrain from voting.
When we debated this proposal for a 100 per cent. increase in the rerating of industry, on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary accused me of not fully putting all the arguments forward in support of our proposal. I told the hon. Gentleman then that my job was to highlight the main proposal that we had to make, and that it was for my hon. Friends on this side to develop the arguments. It is true that the points were not developed fully, and the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) referred to it in the course of his speech. I could not understand why, in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary should say that we debated the matter ad nauseam. As a matter of fact, we did not debate it fully in Committee, because on Clause 1, when we were hoping to have a full discussion on the block grant, we were guillotined by the Government, and, to get some reasonable discussion of the remainder of the Bill, we agreed to a timetable.
The timetable made it difficult for us to debate the rerating of industry as we would have desired. However, in Committee, we made our point of view known, and I am to re-emphasise it this afternoon. The truth is that the Government do not want much discussion of this subject. As in the Budget, in which they looked after their friends by helping them with the new Profits Tax, in this case their desire is to help their supporters in industry who are able to pay their fair share of rates.
Hon. Members on this side have urged the rerating of industry fully to 100 per cent. for a long time, and, indeed, they have been supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will remember that in 1956 he brought forward a Bill for a rerating of industry, and the Government were defeated. Therefore, a majority of hon. Members of the House in a debate on this subject clearly showed that they wanted the rerating of industry fully to 100 per cent. That is the reason why the Government have made some advance, putting up the rate from 25 to 50 per cent.
This would bring in about £30 million a year, the Minister told us, but the local authorities will not get that. The Treasury has seen to that, and will take £20 million of it. The Government ignore the fact that by their inept handling of local authority matters they made a mess of the rerating proposals. They brought forward a proposal which amounted to a 20 per cent. derating of commercial property, by which the local authorities would have lost about £30 million a year. The Government ought to accept the responsibility, and not place burdens on the local authorities, for policies operated because of national considerations.
So far from the local authorities getting the £10 million about which the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) talked, they will find themselves in a worse position as a result of the Government's handling of local authority finance. Proposals for the 100 per cent. rerating of industry have been rejected several times by the Government, who say that it will be a burden upon industry. The fact is that most industries are making very fine profits. It is not a burden upon such industries to pay their fair share of the rates. The Minister

also said that 100 per cent. rerating would mean an increase in the cost of living and, therefore, of the burdens upon industry, but the Government have not produced any evidence in support of that contention.
I have done a little research, and all I can find is that there was a committee, the Balfour Committee on Trade and Industry, which came to the conclusion that the cost to industry of paying its fair share of the rates would mean 0·55 per cent. upon the cost of production. If the Minister has up-to-date figures we shall be impressed with them. The fact is that the addition to the cost of production is very small. Industry has already a high cost of production because it is carried on in a haphazard way. Many firms manufacture the same article, and overlap and compete with each other. There is great expenditure upon unnecessary advertising and there is the cost of the middlemen. The Government ought to give their attention to those factors if they want to bring down the cost of industrial production.
We are facing very serious economic difficulty now. The Government will not face up to the question of costs of production, but are trying to take it out of the busmen. Many of my hon. Friends will remember that in 1926 the miners were the object of attack. We are all delighted this afternoon to see the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) here. I am reminded of Professor Keynes' book. "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill". In it, Professor Keynes said that "the attack on the miners was a beginning. They were the ones to be sacrificed in order to bring about more stability, as affecting the gold standard."
It was an attempt to bring an end to an inflationary situation by attacking the workers, and in the wrong direction. The attack should be concentrated against industrialists, who are not producing as they should. Although they are not very efficient, profits have soared ahead of wages for the last two years. I am not trying to balance wages and profits. The first call on industry should be the wellbeing of the industry and the profits should be ploughed back.
If industry were efficiently organised it could stop much of the inflation that now goes on. Mr. Seymour Melman, an


American who has recently made a tour of Western Europe, has reported that the inflationary tendency was caused as to 80 per cent. by inefficient industrial organisation and as to 20 per cent. by wage increases. In spite of this situation industry continues to make good profits.
For all these reasons we say that it ought to be fully rated so that it could participate fully in the work of local authorities and take an interest in local government. In my own constituency a progressive industrialist said a week or two ago, "The local authority does not do enough for us". I replied that if he paid his full contribution to local rates he could participate in local affairs as part of a powerful group of electors. Industry benefits much more largely than do shopkeepers or householders. The police do more work for industrial establishments than they do in looking after householders. In many cases the sanitation and other services are much more expensive because of the needs of industry. If industry does not pay full rates it is not fair to other ratepayers.
The Government are going ahead with provision for mental health. In these days a number of physical wrecks are turned out from factories, and the mental welfare services will have to look after them. This burden falls upon the local authorities. Industry ought also to pay its fair share to the local authority for the fire service.
When the derating Act was introduced in 1929, by a Conservative Government, we were in a period of economic depression. The Government of the day thought that by introducing that Act they would assist employment and increase exports, which were as vital then as they are now and would thus get us the raw materials to keep employment going. In January, 1929, the year when that Act was introduced, there were 1,146,000 unemployed, or 12½ per cent. of the employed population. In 1932, the unemployment figure had risen to 2,885,000, or 22½ per cent.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman remembers that at that time a Labour Government were in power.

Mr. Bottomley: A Labour Government were in control for a brief period.

The Bill was a Conservative Bill and there was widespread unemployment. The Labour Government were in power in 1929 with a pistol at their head, being kept in office by the combined efforts of Conservatives and Liberals. They were never able to put their policy into operation. Before they could do so, they were thrown out.

The Chairman: Did they do all this under the Bill?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: I was tempted, Sir Charles. I am very glad that you afforded me the opportunity to reply. I will keep to the Amendment. I dislike getting out of order, particularly when you are in the Chair and are so kind to us. I merely hope that your rebuff went not only to me, but to the hon. Member.
In 1932, in spite of the derating Act, the unemployment figures went up to 2,885,000, representing 22½ per cent. of the working population. What about exports? Derating was introduced to boost our exports. In 1929, when the Act came into being, our exports were running at the rate of £729 million a year, but by 1938 they had fallen to £471 million.
The only way to tackle the urgent problem of inflation, unemployment and exports, which concerns us all, is not by derating industry but by making industry pay its full share. The way to tackle the real problem is through controlled investment, proper distribution of raw materials, long-term trade agreements, distribution of industry and economic planning. If industry is compelled to pay 100 per cent. rates it can get relief from other forms of taxation, and that is the way it should get it.
On Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary—I was surprised that he should argue this—said he was concerned about the rising cost of living—although the Government have done nothing to stop it—and stated that, in the main, the industries which would be heavily hit by rerating would be those concerned with food products. That comes ill from the Parliamentary Secretary, particularly when Government policy has been responsible for sending up food prices to a level 45 per cent. higher than under the Labour Government, and this has been at a time


when import prices have declined, some by as much as 10 per cent.
When leading his party into battle just before he became Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford said that a Government would be judged according to the effect of its programme upon rising costs and prices. The public have given their answer at Kelvingrove and Rochdale and in the municipal elections. The Government refuse to rerate industry at 100 per cent.; we accuse them of giving a hidden subsidy to industry. Householders and shopkeepers are subsidising prosperous industries. This is an injustice to ratepayers who have to contribute their full share.
This morning I spoke to an official from my home town who said that rerating of industry would bring in for his borough £321,665, which was equal to a reduction in the rate of 3s. 8d. in the £. This is something which would help to bring down the cost of living. It is true that some industries are in difficulties; we cannot deny that. However, to the extent that they are in difficulties not of their own making, and to the extent that they are essential to the national economy, the Government have a responsibility to do something for them, but they should not pass the burden on to the local authorities, because it is not a local authority responsibility.
What the Government are anxious to do is consistent with what they have done ever since derating was introduced. As soon as it was introduced, the Dr. Charles Hill of that day issued a Press statement, which was widely circulated. It said:
It will be well for our friends to remember that the main policy of the Government for the permanent relief of productive industry is the great scheme of derating.
We plead for the small shopkeeper and the householder, for their need is greater.

Mr. John Diamond: I am anxious to support the Amendment. This matter was touched upon during Second Reading, and I intervened on two occasions to obtain the necessary information relating to it.
The argument for rerating does not require to be put. What is required is the argument against full rerating. The argument that everybody should pay their full share does not require to be made. If a certain category is not required

to pay its full share, then that argument should be put.
The Government are saying that industry, more or less alone, should not be required to pay its share of rates like the rest of us do. Why is that so? Now that we are reviewing the matter, why do the Government say that industry can afford only to double its present contribution of a quarter instead of multiplying it by four and paying an equal share with the rest of us? That is a very interesting question, and the Government have given their answer to it.
The matter was first raised during the Second Reading debate, and the Minister then dealt with it. He said:
In the present economic circumstances, and remembering the effect of costs on exports, the Government decided that rerating to 50 per cent. constituted as heavy an addition to overheads as industry could safely be required to bear.
I know not what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said "in the present economic circumstances". I assume he referred to the economic circumstances existing after six years of Conservative Government. Those are the economic circumstances which existed at the time the speech was made.
From my own knowledge—which is never adequate, but is some guide; I am sure that the Committee has never yet refused to listen to someone who happens to have personal experience—of about 500 firms, it seemed to me that that statement was not borne out by the facts. It seemed to me at that time that if a firm did a turnover of about £1 million, the full cost of rerating—that is to say, with a rise from the 50 per cent. to the 100 per cent.—would be about £5,000. That was my personal impression at that time, namely, that a cost of a half of 1 per cent. of the turnover would be what the Amendment asks for and what the Government are refusing.
Therefore, shortly afterwards I intervened and asked the Minister:
What proportion of manufacturing costs over the country does it amount to?
I asked what the addition to overheads to which he had just referred would be. The Minister replied:
I have worked out all these things.
We are grateful that the Minister has the information. We shall now no longer


be told that the information is not available. The Minister has done his homework and the information is available.
However, the Minister then proceeded to give me a typical ministerial reply. He said:
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that one must think not only of the prosperous industries, but also of the struggling industries. One must also bear in mind that within an industry there may be individual firms doing well and individual firms which are finding it hard to keep going."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 910–11.]
That is as vague and as uninformative an answer as one would expect from the Government Front Bench. Incidentally, what an argument that is in terms of efficiency, that one cannot introduce something because, although there are many prosperous firms, there are some firms which are not doing so well!
That is as far as I was able to go with the Minister in getting information which is absolutely essential to enable the Committee to come to a conclusion on the matter, information which the Minister, knowing it to be essential, had carefully worked out. There was, however, a light on the horizon, for later in the same speech the Minister said:
If hon. Members will allow me to continue, they will find that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with all their questions at the end of the debate."—[OFFICIIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579. c. 918.]
You know me to be a patient man, Sir Charles. I listened with great interest to every speech in the debate. Next day came the time for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. Here was the opportunity for which we had all been waiting, the opportunity of getting the information relating to the cost of full rerating in relation to overheads which the Minister had worked out. That did not seem to he forthcoming, so I again intervened. I said:
The Minister yesterday gave us an undertaking that the hon. Member, in replying, would answer our questions. The question I now wish to ask him is that which I asked his right hon. Friend yesterday. How much is involved? What is the cost of rerating fully, as opposed to 50 per cent., either per £ of sales or in terms of the profit of the industry in question?
The Parliamentary Secretary replied. Here at last, we thought, we were to get the full information which the right hon. Gentleman had promised and for which

he had had 24 hours to prepare his reply. Here is the illuminating answer:
As my right hon. Friend said when he dealt with the hon. Member's intervention yesterday, the percentage which full rerating would bear to industrial costs would vary widely from industry to industry and also from firm to firm. As I said before, the industry which would find complete rerating the biggest burden would be that of food manufacture. It would be such a burden that almost inevitably it would be reflected in prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1195.]
Thus, we have precisely no information at all, except the Minister's first statement that industry could not bear it because of exports and because of the addition to overhead expenses, and the Parliamentary Secretary's addition that the foodstuffs industry would be particularly hit.
If the Government will not give us the information, we have to do the best we can in preparing the information ourselves. It is with diffidence that I submit to the Committee such information as exists; no doubt the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me whether I am wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to the Balfour Committee. I have gone back to the same period, because I do not think that we can leave the matter without these figures, especially in the light of the rather suspicious circumstances in which the Government are hedging and dodging so violently to avoid giving us the most essential and relevant information.
An industrial survey of the Lancashire area was carried out by Manchester University, and an article was published in the Financial Circular in June, 1933, by Mr. D. N. Chester. This is reported in a book issued under the auspices of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, in May, 1945, priced 7s. 6d. Mr. Chester reported on a number of firms in Lancashire. This is not countrywide, but it is an indication. He found that the cost of full rating in 1927, before derating was introduced, was one-half of 1 per cent. on the selling price for the average cotton firm. On an average of three foodstuffs firms—biscuits, preserves and flour—the average was 0·4 per cent. For the cotton firm, it was 0·5 per cent., and. for the foodstuffs firm, 0·4 per cent.
That was published in 1945 long before the world knew that the House would be honoured by the present Parliamentary Secretary becoming a Member and giving us this all important information, and it therefore could not have been published with that end in view. It was a fairly objective statement, and it does not tally with what the Parliamentary Secretary said in winding up the Second Reading debate.
4.15 p.m.
There are three general conclusions which Mr. Chester drew about the value of derating in 1933, some years after derating had had time to have an effect. He said that for those industries in which the value of production either remained constant or increased, the derating relief was in the nature of a pure gift. That is how he described it in 1933. To those whose production went down, he said, it could not have been any help at all. They were losing production, losing employment, and losing wealth. But for those where production remained constant, derating was a pure gift.
The example which he gave—and I shall refer to this again later—was that of motor cars. He said:
The motor car industry in recent years has shown considerable expansion and for this reason the example cannot be regarded as an exception. In 1927, rates expressed as a percentage of selling price were 0·165 per cent. Owing to the double effect of derating and increasing output, this fell to 0·0224 per cent. in 1930. In other words, the rates on a £200 car were reduced from 6s. 7d. to 11d.
Full rating on a £200 car was 6s. 7d. This is the export industry which the Minister said could not possibly survive the heavy burden. This is why a revolution is now taking place in Coventry through the fear that when a Socialist Government are re-elected and full re-rating is introduced, the whole of the motor car industry will collapse, because a £200 car will have 6s. 7d. added to its selling price.
Those are the figures for 1933. I will not leave them there, but will go on to more up-to-date times shortly, but those are the points made in Mr. Chester's paper. He was not the only gentleman to undertake a review of derating figures at that time. There was a Mr. E. C. Fairchild, Ph.D., D.Lit., who undertook a research into the same topic and reported in the same book under the same

auspices of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.
He drew the conclusion that for a Lancashire mill at which he had looked the full cost of rating as a percentage on the selling price was one-half of 1 per cent. If I may, I will summarise the period around 1933 and the conclusions drawn before I come to the present. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham said, the Balfour Committee gave the full cost of rating as one-half of 1 per cent. Mr. Chester said that the full cost of rating for cotton firms was one-half of 1 per cent. and for foodstuffs firms slightly less. Mr. Fairchild said that the full cost of rating on Lancashire mills was one-half of 1 per cent. In short, a figure emerged from the researches of everybody who looked into the matter showing that, by and large, the cost of full rating was one-half of 1 per cent.
We have to bring the matter up to date as far as we can, because the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary dodged the issue and refused to give the information on Second Reading. The figures which I give may not be wholly accurate but if they are not, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are to blame, because we can do only the best we can if they refuse to help us.
If we look at the annual Abstract of Statistics, we find that the total value of production for 1955 is £22,800 million. We can, therefore, assume that in 1956 it was about £24,000 million, because it was rising. Thus, the value of industrial production of the country was £24,000 million. Those are the industries which are described as all-census industries and are the industries affected by the Amendment.
What is the burden of full rerating? In the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill, to which the Minister referred, we are told that the cost of rerating from one-quarter to one-half is about £30 million. It therefore follows that the cost of rerating from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. is about another £60 million. That is the amount of further revenue which local authorities would be likely to receive if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Cooper: That is an illusion under which hon. Members of the Labour Party have been suffering for years. They would not receive that amount at all;


they would receive about 20 per cent. of it, because rates are a charge against Income Tax. For such reasons as that, the revenue would be less.

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who always manages to be helpful in his interventions. If he gives me a figure one-third as high as that which I am giving, then the charge on industry about which we are talking will be three times lower than the figure which I have put forward.

Mr. Cooper: No.

Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Member will follow my arithmetic a little, and not interrupt so quickly, it will save him another embarrassment.

Mr. Cooper: The amount of rating is a charge against Income Tax. It therefore follows that industry would have had to sustain that charge in the first place.

Mr. Diamond: It always comes as a revelation to a chartered accountant to be told that rates are a charge against Income Tax. I am grateful to the hon. Member for telling me.
I am being much fairer to the Committee than the hon. Member is, because I am dealing with the cost as a percentage of production, because there were two legs to the argument put forward by the Minister: first, the cost of overheads; and, secondly, the argument that these firms could not bear the burden of re-rating, meaning that they would have no profit left if this horrible Amendment were accepted.
Let me continue, if I may, with the argument which I was putting to the Committee—the revised, up-to-date version of this one-half of 1 per cent. On the best information which we have available, £30 million is said by the Minister, by the Treasury, and by those who signed the Bill to be the extra revenue likely to be received from re-rating industry from one-quarter to one-half. If we rerate industry from a half to a whole, therefore, a further £60 million, approximately, will be available.
I know that that is overstating it slightly, because the £30 million is a little more than a quarter, but it does not matter for this purpose; we can well afford in this argument to give every

possible advantage in the figures to the Government because they make nonsense of the Government's argument, however much we help them with the figures.
What is £60 million as a proportion of £24,000 million? It is an easy sum to do, and the answer is one-quarter of 1 per cent. Let us see how that ties in with the 1933 figures. In 1933, all the investigations showed that the cost of full rating was one-half of 1 per cent. of the sales price. The Amendment which we propose is rerating of a further 50 per cent., and that is one-quarter of 1 per cent. according to these figures in the Abstract of Statistics. In short, it is precisely the same proportion today as it was in 1933, as one would have expected; everything has remained in the same proportion.
The information which the Government Front Bench refused to give on Second Reading tlerefore turns out, as far as one can see, to be that this burden on industry and on exports would amount to a further one-quarter of 1 per cent. or ½d. in the £ under the Amendment.
Let us look at the motor car industry. A motor car is today sold at £500 excluding Purchase Tax; that is the cost of a small car, excluding Purchase Tax, for export purposes. I refer to the car on which we do so well with our exports. Under the proposal, that car would cost not £500 but £501 or, if the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) wishes me to be absolutely accurate—and I fear another interruption it I am not—the figure is £501 0s. 10d. That will be the effect on the motor car industry and on exports of full rerating such as we propose.
Can it be said, therefore, that it is anything other than utter nonsense for the Government to say that industry cannot afford this? The Government have dodged the issue from the beginning up to this point and I hope that they will dodge it no longer. All the inquiries which we have made have shown what we suspected—that the figure is so low as to be negligible, that it will have a negligible effect on exports and that it will have a negligible effect on profits. Converted into terms of profits, it would be about 6d. in the £; that would come off the dividends of shareholders, after taking tax into account.
In those circumstances, the Government must withdraw the argument that industry cannot afford full rerating, even after six years of Conservative Government.

Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: The subject of rerating is not new to the Committee. Hon. Members will recollect that it was about two years ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) moved the Second Reading of a Bill on the subject, which was ultimately rejected, and that, apart from that, a number of Questions have been asked about the subject over the past few years.
That is not surprising, because the subject is of immense importance to local authorities. Ever since 1929 they have been agitating against the derating provisions. Their protests have been continuous. What is more, those protests have not been confined to members of the Labour Party or councils controlled by members of the Labour Party. I know from personal experience that the Birmingham City Council, even when it was controlled by members of the Conservative Party, after due consideration and after an examination of such facts as were available, came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Corporation to make a protest to the Government of the day against the continued derating of industry. I think that what the Birmingham City Council did in those days was also done by a good many other councils in the country, both Labour and Conservative.
Why were those protests made? They were made not only because local authorities were losing financially, but because it was obvious to the ordinary citizen in the street, who knew practically nothing about the finance concerned, that there was an injustice in one section of the ratepayers paying 5s. in the £, as it were, while the occupants of dwelling-houses or small shopkeepers had to pay the full 20s. That unfairness and injustice was obvious to them and that is why they made their protests, both individually and collectively through the councils. This injustice is to be continued in this Bill.
4.30 p.m.
It is an injustice. Despite what some members of the Government have said from time to time, that derating would be permanent, nevertheless that injustice is so great that the Government themselves

now propose, not, of course, full rating, but a partial rerating of industry. They have given way to the extent of saying to industry, "You shall be rated now at 10s. in the £ instead of at 5s., as previously."
Thirty years ago, when the House discussed the original derating provisions, almost the sole reason given for them was the state of industry in those days. Speeches were made pointing to the depression, to the difficulties of our industries at home and in exporting. I am not going today to argue whether derating in 1929 was justified. Let us assume it was justified in those days. Whatever was the basis for derating in 1929 it certainly cannot be the basis today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has conclusively shown, industry no longer needs derating because of the state of its finances, its profits and its dividends.
I shall certainly not attempt to cover the ground my hon. Friend has so well covered today, but it does seem absurd for the Government to contend, or attempt to contend, that industry does need derating today. The two figures quoted already by my hon. Friend illustrating the burden which industry will bear after rerating at 50 per cent. and in relation to the prosperity of the country lead one to the conclusion, if one considers them rationally and fairly, that there is no justification at all for allowing industry to continue under a system of derating. I think that the Government themselves, in their heart and mind, realise they cannot seriously put forward that contention.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government attempted, in a sentence or two, in the Second Reading debate, to justify the proposals before us today, and he said that the share borne by industry in 1959 and 1960, that is, when the Bill comes into operation for the first time, would be about three times as big as it was two years ago. The share will certainly be bigger, but in part that will be due to revaluation, and industry is not the only section of ratepayers to have had to contend with revaluation. As tenants of dwelling-houses or as shopkeepers we have all had to take our part in revaluation. What is more, it ought to be remembered that there was no revaluation from 1934 until a couple of years ago.
In so far as the increased costs to industry are related to rerating, I would


point out that those extra costs merely reflect the fact that for thirty years industry has paid very little at all, and if, upon a section of the ratepayers which has escaped its dues for so long, is put a burden approximating to a fair one, then, obviously, that will be a rather heavier one than that section expected. For thirty years industry has been relieved of millions of pounds and escaped paying as what properly it should have paid. So long as rates remain the basis of local government finance there is no justification at all, in my opinion, for allowing industry to escape full 100 per cent. rating.
I call the attention of the Committee to the differences in the actions taken by this Government in the payment of subsidies. After all, this derating is a subsidy to industry. Why should the Government pay this subsidy completely irrespective of need, as they have been doing and as they propose to do? I want for a moment to contrast the action they are asking the Committee today to endorse with the action they have taken in housing subsidies. We have had quite a number of Government statements on housing subsidies and I want to refer to one or two of them.
The present Minister of Defence, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, announced the abolition of housing subsidies for general purposes and he was quite sure then that there was no justification for paying subsidies to tenants of municipal houses. He chastised local authority tenants for the rent relief they were given, and he spoke of the
continued misuse of public money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 378.]
That applied equally to subsidies to industry.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the earnings of municipal tenants as being on the average £11 a week, and he said that one-third of the people had television licences. The inference wlich the right hon. Gentleman obviously intended us to draw was that if one had a television licence there was no justification at all for being paid a subsidy for a municipal rent. He also contrasted the average wage of the tenants drawing £11 a week with their rent, saying that they had £11

a week, on the one hand, and were paying, on the other, rent of 9s. or 10s. a week.
Why do not the Government adopt a similar line of reasoning today? Why do not they say to industry, "Here are the profits you are making and you are paying only a small portion of those profits in rates"? That does not bring in the question of the making of profits at all and does not pay regard to the prosperity of industry which has been in evidence during the last few years and which continues today. Instead of that, the Government say to industry, "You have been paying only 5s. in the £ for thirty years. We will make it 10s." If they had adopted, on this Bill, the reasoning they adopted about municipal tenants we should have had quite a different proposal today.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that reliefs should be given only to those who needed them and only for so long as they did need them. If that was good reasoning then, why should it not be applied to industry today? Does industry need the relief? My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has shown that it does not. If it did need relief, it is my contention that it should be given not at the expense of the local authorities but at the expense of the Exchequer.
There is, in derating, no discrimination between an industry which is prosperous and an industry in a poor condition. That does not matter at all. The subsidy is paid. This Government's policy apparently is to distribute rate subsidies ad lib to industry whether poor or prosperous, yet, at the same time, the Government object to any idea of paying a rent subsidy to municipal tenants who happen to possess television sets.
I cannot reconcile the two attitudes, and I believe, as do my hon. Friends, that there is no justification whatever today for this continued derating of industry. If industry can show a need, let it be met in the proper way. Whatever else happens, local authorities ought not to be penalised and made to do without what has been regarded traditionally as their basic source of income. There is no other source of income available to them which can be regarded as a free source, that is, a source they can themselves determine, and how it shall be used.
For these reasons, and others that I could give, I support the Amendment very strongly indeed, because I believe that there are no grounds whatever today for allowing industry to escape its full share of rating.

Mr. Cooper: I have a great deal of sympathy with this Amendment. When I was a member of Ilford Borough Council, some years ago, and Chairman of its Legal and Parliamentary Committee, we made representations to our then Member of Parliament to see whether a revision of the 1929 Act could be brought about. I think that in due time industry will have to bear its full share of rates, but whether the present is the right time for that is, of course, open to argument.
I find it somewhat difficult to associate the arguments advanced today by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite with their lack of action from 1945 until 1951. From 1945 until 1950 they had an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons and they could have done, as they did in many things, exactly what they pleased, yet not one move was made to rectify what today they regard as one of the great evils of our time. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) talks about industry not paying its full share to the Exchequer either locally or nationally, but completely overlooks the enormous payments through taxation, including Profits Tax, which industry makes to the Exchequer, and which very largely goes towards supporting the Welfare State.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite really must remember that the strength and wealth of the country depend upon efficient and prosperous industry and that there is no other source from which our wealth comes. By virtue of a very high, penal and swingeing taxation since the end of the war, industry has found it very difficult to accumulate the capital necessary to re-equip itself and to keep itself going in the face of very severe overseas competition. There is no argument against that.
Hon. Members opposite talk about the high level of profits in the country, but what they do is generalise, and that is a very bad thing. Of course, there are some industries which are very profitable indeed, and there are firms in those industries which are leaders in those industries not only here but all over the

world, and who do a tremendous job for the country. Equally, there are a large number of businesses, small businesses, sometimes employing as few as 20 or 30 people, which for one reason or another—changing times and conditions—are having a thin time, and have had a thin time for a very great number of years.
Within the last few weeks hon. Gentlemen opposite have raised Questions about industries in their own divisions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), whom I see in his place, had a Question on this very subject today. It is the small industries, employing a few people, which will be affected by a severe increase in rates at present. Because of the credit squeeze, high rates of interest and a high level of taxation they are unable to accumulate the capital that they need. At present, therefore, it is necessary to restrict the amount of expenditure which they must necessarily incur to the lowest possible level.
4.45 p.m.
It is really unfair of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), for whom I have great personal regard, to create the impression that rerating of industry would provide the local authorities with an additional £60 million a year. He knows perfectly well that it will do no such thing. For the reasons I gave in an intervention, the £60 million extra which industry will pay out to the local authorities—or rather, it is assumed will be paid to the local authorities—would be a direct loss to the Exchequer by virtue of the loss in Profits Tax and Income Tax.
The Exchequer will not willingly give up approximately £40 million a year revenue. It is quite obvious, therefore, that it would seek to recoup itself in precisely the same way as is to be done under the present proposals. Under the present proposals the loss to the Exchequer will be about £30 million, but local authorities, by way of improvements in existing grants, will benefit to the extent of £10 million, not the £30 million, the gross sum they would receive.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I do not think that the hon. Member is quite correct there. The increased rates payable by industry under the Bill will be equivalent to £30 million. That means.


in effect, that industry will be able to claim the tax allowance on that sum and the Treasury will lose approximately 8s. 6d. in every £. So, in fact, it will not be £30 million, but in the region of £12 million or £13 million.

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It will certainly lose 30 million times 8s. 6d., but it will also lose the revenue from Profits Tax on distributed profits and undistributed profits at the appropriate rate.
Let us not argue one way or the other for the sake of £1 million on either side. The point I am trying to get into the heads of hon. Members opposite is that the £30 million which industry will pay to local authorities by way of increased rates under the proposals in the Bill will not be the net sum it will have to spend by virtue of the change in the grant by which the Exchequer will recoup itself for its loss in Income and Profits Tax.

Mr. Diamond: Does the hon. Member really think that he is entitled to anticipate his right hon. Friend's next Budget statement but one?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that I am doing anything like that. I have been a Member of the House long enough to realise that Chancellors of the Exchequer do not give up £30 million or £40 million without a fight. I just cannot believe that if the Opposition's Amendment were accepted the loss in Income Tax and Profits Tax, which would be about £40 million out of £60 million, would be a direct gain to local authorities. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that that would not be so.

Dr. Horace King: The hon. Member is a very fair-minded man and I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the Committee. May I put to him what his own Government have said in the White Paper about the £30 million which has come in as a result of rerating?
The estimated product of rerating is of the order of £30 million a year of which about half will be at the expense of the Exchequer.
So, even the case of the Government is that rerating will cost the Exchequer only half the amount involved.

Mr. Cooper: That is what I have been saying. I have expressly said, let us not

argue with each other over £1 million on either side. It is an estimate. The sole point I am making is that this £60 million will not be a net gain to local authorities.
We have been told that industry is not paying it fair share of the burden of local expenditure and that it receives a lot of services for which, financially, it makes no contribution. To an extent that is true, but I think it also fair to point out that the majority of the larger firms provide their own internal fire services, their own internal first-aid and, in many cases, doctor and medical service. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, also very large sections of industry finance, either directly or indirectly, technological schools and further education services out of the produce of their industry.
In pointing out one side of the argument, it is fair to point out what industry does on another side. I think that in due time the rerating of industry must proceed until it is 100 per cent., but at present the proposals of the Government are fair and reasonable.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) has warned us against generalising. If I may say so, his own speech seemed to be an example of generalising almost from the first sentence to the last. I do not intend to follow his example in that respect.
I intend to particularise because I represent in this Committee a population which reflected the need for derating in 1929 and which also reflects the need for rerating now. In 1929, there were great depressed areas in many parts of the country. In South Wales, there were 75 per cent. unemployed and in valleys like the Rhondda and Merthyr one could scarcely find a young person. In Glasgow, and in the shipbuilding areas of Newcastle and Belfast, and in the textile industry of Lancashire, we had the same depression. People poured out of those areas to the newly developing towns. They came to Coventry, with its motor car and engineering industries. They came to Luton, with its similar industries. They came to the town of Slough, which had the first trading estate; 30 per cent. of the population of that town came from the depressed areas.
I think that there was a case in 1929, in attempting to meet the depression, for giving industries in expanding towns,


which were providing for the unemployed population from other parts of the country, the opportunity to develop. But there is another side to that picture, to which reference is very rarely made in this Chamber. We had these new expanding towns concentrating over a very short period of years expenses in public services which, in other places, were borne over a long period of years. The growth of population meant that there was heavy expenditure on roads, houses, lighting and, perhaps particularly, upon drainage.
In Slough, with our expanding population, there was a period when, in wet weather, sewage seeped into the streets. Only by the expenditure of a vast sum of money were we able to establish a drainage system which was able to meet the influx of the population. Under those conditions the derating which it was desirable to give in the period of depression became a burden upon the town when depression had passed, because of the heavy cost of public services with that expanding population.
I want to illustrate this from the actual figures relating to Slough. The total rateable value is £1,375,000. The rateable value of its industrial premises is more than half that total, £764,000. Under derating, that has meant that we have lost £573,000 each year in rates, 42 per cent. of the total rateable value of the borough. Even under the new Bill, lifting the rating to 50 per cent., we shall still be losing £382,000 by derating. While derating might have been justified in the depression years, at present it is only a subsidy to the industrialists at the expense of the householders and shopkeepers.
I want to make a plea on behalf of those who are serving on local authorities. The policy of the Government is making their task absolutely impossible. With the high interest rates, with the loss of housing subsidies, their position is now intolerable. In Slough, the rates are 21s. 8d. in the £, of which 15s. 4d. is the county share. The excusing of the industrialists of 50 per cent, of what they should be paying in rates means that the rate for Slough itself is 2s. 3d. above what it should be.
5.0 p.m.
I make a plea, from my own experience on behalf of members of local

authorities left in the absolutely impossible financial position in which the Government have left them. This 50 per cent. derating of industrial premises means they are faced with problems that they cannot possibly tackle. There are the problems facing the members of tenancy and housing committees; the problems of housing lists; the appalling need of people living in overcrowded conditions and in poverty, for whom houses simply cannot be built because the local authorities have not the necessary financial resources.
The members of these local authorities are doing a magnificent service to the country. They are doing it voluntarily, but the Government are placing an impossible burden on them. They often have to face the abuse and obloquy which really should be turned on the Government, because the financial difficulties in which the Government have placed them mean that they are not able to meet public needs. To allow the local authorities to have this 50 per cent. rateable value upon industrial premises, from which the industrialists are now excused, would be some relief to those authorities in their present difficulties, and it is for that reason I urge the Committee to accept the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Dr. King.

Mr. Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. Two hon. Members on this side were standing up.

The Temporary Chairman: I did not observe them. Dr. King.

Dr. King: When the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) began to speak, I thought that he intended to join my hon. Friends in pleading with the Government to accept the Amendment. Any Conservative who is interested in local government, and many hon. Members opposite are, especially those who, like the hon. Member for Ilford, graduated to this House from local government, must realise that the plea that we are making to ease the burden on local authorities is a weighty one.
Before making a few comments on the Amendment I want to take up two things said by the hon. Member. He seemed to suggest that we were attacking industry on moral grounds, and pointed out in


defence of industry that industry is already a considerable taxpayer. No one on this side questions that, but the ratepayer is also a taxpayer, and even the Government's own White Paper admits that the ratepayer, apart from the burden he carries as such, is bearing, year by year, a tremendous load of national taxation. Therefore, the moral issue we place before the Committee is that industry, like the domestic ratepayer, ought to bear its fair share of both forms of taxation.
The hon. Member also said that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was wrong because the figures were inaccurate and that any differences involved were trivial. Let us be quite clear what is involved in the Amendment. According to the Government's own figures, the proposed 25 per cent. rerating involves a sum of £30 million. According to the Government's own White Paper, they will lose in national taxation of industry half of that sum—£15 million. To make quite sure of losing nothing, they steal from the local authorities another £5 million. They take £20 million out of the £30 million, leaving the local authorities with only £10 million.
If, instead of the 25 per cent. rerating, we went for full rerating, the amount involved would be roughly £90 million. The Government might then argue that they were losing £45 million and, being the Government they are, would then steal £60 million. That would still leave £30 million to distribute among the local authorities. Therefore, even accepting the Government's own case—which no one on this side accepts, because we regard even the taking from local authorities of £20 million of the £30 million new income as a wrong act of the Government—but even on the Government's own basis of calculation, on the one hand, and of Government policy, on the other, what we are now discussing is whether local authorities shall get £30 million or £10 million out of rerating. Therefore, this debate is by no means a quibble about a minor detail of figures between hon. Members on this side and the hon. Member for Ilford, South.
I find, and I am sure that I carry the Committee with me here, that every local authority is concerned about the increasing burden of rates. Every worker

in local government is also a ratepayer. Every worker in local government is in close touch with his constituents, and no one can fail to be uneasy about the growing resistance of ratepayers to paying more and more in rates. One of the fears which I have voiced in my own local authority is that there may yet grow up in this country a negative, anti-ratepaying party something like the Poujadist Party, in France.
The simple fact is that we had a new assessment less than three years ago. Its effect was to reduce the poundage levied—on paper, at any rate—although the ratepayer was paying more, but so rapid has been the increase in the cost of local government services that already most authorities are now levying almost the same old poundage rate on the new assessment, which means that every ratepayer is paying much more this year than he ever paid before.
I know that a long time ago the Government White Paper argued that the rate burden was not excessive on the ground that taxes had gone up four times as much, which seems a very curious form of logic. Secondly, in that White Paper the Government insulted the intelligence of the British people by saying that the rate burden was not excessive because very few people had gone to gaol for non-payment of rates. In fact, since the war, fewer people have gone to gaol for that reason than ever before, but instead of using that as a tribute to the honesty of the ratepayer, and to the merits of the Welfare State which guarantees social security and, thereby, helps the social conscience, the Government now uses it as an argument to punish the taxpayer for his honesty by robbing him of a very large share of the money that he was to have obtained from rerating.
The financial burden on the local authorities is only beginning. There are still vast social programmes ahead which they cannot escape. The full implementation of the Education Act is only half way through. Anyone who knows his own local authority knows that the capital building programmes are only half way through the education development plans which were adopted in 1945 and 1946. Sooner or later, every local authority will have to carry its share of the cost of the 60,000 new teachers necessary to get school classes to the size


laid down in Government regulations. Every local authority has to build many more schools. It has to provide an expanding further education after 15 years of age, and, under Government regulations, it has to provide an extending technical education service and, sooner or later, has to get rid of the slum schools. Education alone is adding, and inevitably continuing to add, to the burden which, somehow or other, local government finance must carry.
We had a reference yesterday to the beginning of the revolution in the care of our old folk, and to the wonderful work being started by welfare committees and various local authorities in that direction. As their pilot schemes really fire the imagination of the people a vastly expanded financial burden will be placed on local authorities in intelligently looking after our old folk.
There are the vast roads programmes which every hon. Member asks the Minister of Transport, year by year, to include in his annual programme, for which the local authorities have to pay. There is the care of the mentally sick. There are the vast housing programmes, even under the Minister's own direction. All these steadily add to the local authorities' financial burdens, and they have therefore, for quite a number of years been asking for some new method of financing local government.
The crudest method is an increase in Government aid but this Bill cuts down Government aid. The simplest method, on which advisory committees have reported favourably, is that of giving the local authorities a little local income tax or, of allowing them after having collected the motor tax, to keep it. Here, however, in this Amendment, is a patently simple way of adding, at one stroke, to their financial resources a minimum sum of about £20 million. Those authorities which are benefiting—I must admit, unlike Blackpool—to the full from partial industrial re-rating, those that are reaping a considerable benefit from the £10 million, have only to do a bit of multiplication to see what they would reap if the Amendment were carried.
Quite frankly, I am one of those who fear that unless we find a new method of helping local government finance, local government itself may break under the strain of the services that it will have to

carry during the next ten years. If I have so far said nothing that unanimously carries the support of the Committee, I am sure that I have its unanimous agreement when I say that if local government should break down it would be a great tragedy for democratic government.
I wish to refer now to the two local authorities in which I am interested. The full rerating of industry would benefit the Hampshire County Council by between a 1s. and a 1s. 6d. rate. The full rerating of industry in Southampton would benefit Southampton by between a 1s. 6d. and a 2s. rate. That is a considerable sum. In Hampshire, it is about one-seventh of the rate levied, and in Southampton it must be about one-eighth of the rate levied. Full rerating under the Bill would, therefore, mean to Hampshire and Southampton folk a considerable and immediate alleviation of the rate burden, and a healthy source of finance to enable them to grapple with the heavy financial commitments which still must be met in the years ahead.
I have here the Minister's own hypothetical tables. He is most ingenious in using them. If anyone else uses them, he says that they are hypothetical, but if he himself uses them he regards them as something with which to argue. Hon. Members will remember that yesterday he knocked down the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) with his own hypothetical tables.
Those tables show that partial rerating brought an increase in the product of Hampshire's penny rate of £2,707. Under the Government's proposals, the product of a penny rate in Hampshire is increased by roughly £2,700. The bulk of that increase is the benefit that Hampshire gets from the proposed industrial re-rating, so that, if the Amendment were carried, instead of Hampshire's penny rate product increasing by £2,700 it would increase by about £7,000.
The similar figures for Southampton show that partial industrial rerating brings to the borough treasurer an increased product of a penny rate of £855, and, under the Bill if amended in the way we seek to amend it, the increased product of a penny rate would be £2,500. Therefore, this is no light Amendment. It has something valuable to give to


almost every local authority in the country. Indeed, the only local authorities which would not benefit would be those without any industry at all.
I believe that the rate burden is inequitable. It is a historic survival from an old property tax. It weighs most heavily on the man with a large family. It bears no relation to a man's income. A very rich man, if he lives in a certain way, can pay little or no rates. On the other hand, the poor man, if he has a large family, must inevitably pay considerable rates. The poorest in the country are exempt from national taxation, at any rate from national income taxation, but the poorest people in the country have to live somewhere and therefore have to pay rates. The real crushing burden of rates is upon the poorest, on the old-age pensioners, on the people with small fixed incomes. Any move to shift some of the incidence of the cost of local government services from rates to taxes is, in my opinion, a move in the direction of social justice and equity.
5.15 p.m.
Why should we ask industry to bear its fair share of the rates? In spite of those who argue that industry has little connection with local government, industry gains a great deal from local government. Let us be quite clear about that. It has fire protection, the cost of which, as everyone interested in the affairs of his own council knows, is quite considerable. Indeed, the principal service rendered by the fire service to an authority is, I believe, in protecting industries from destruction. Every industry benefits by the roads provided by local authorities. Every industry benefits by the police. I know that the hon. Member for Ilford, South said that progressive industries had their own policemen, their own first-aid boxes and their own fire cover, but heaven help any industry which depended for its welfare, health and the well-being of its factory and workers on the first-aid box, the temporary fire service and the temporary police protection provided within it.
Above all, every industry depends on education. It is the schools of the country which will feed into industry the trained and able young people to build up British industry in the struggle ahead. I hope that industry will never isolate itself

from education, We are, indeed, living in a time when progressive and enlightened industrialists are coming into the national education service in all kinds of ways, helping to build up education, because, in the last resort, industry flourishes on the trained and eager young minds and hands of the children. Because industry benefits from education, I believe that it should pay its full share towards it, through both national and local taxation.

Sir Patrick Spens: This debate takes me back to the first Parliamentary fight I had in 1929, which some hon. Members will remember as well as I do. The two main points about which we fought in the 1929 Election were the Safeguarding of Industries Bill and the derating proposals which had just come into operation. We lost that fight, and the first Labour Government came in under Mr. MacDonald. They did not interfere in any way at all with derating. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), the derating Measures, together with the Safeguarding of Industries Act, did the job we wanted them to do. They worked very slowly and disappointingly, but, nevertheless, bit by bit, in the trading estates in various parts of the country, industry got going where it had not been going for many years. Bit by bit, and slowly, men were brought back into employment who had been out of employment for a very long time.
It is heartening to me to hear hon. Members opposite say that, so flourishing is industry under the Conservative Government, there need be no fears whatever about charging industry the full 100 per cent. of rates. I am delighted to hear that said, but, I regret to say, I do not take that view, I believe that a chain, as is often said, depends upon its weakest links. In industry today, we have weak links. It is not the great flourishing businesses, to which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) referred, which ought to be taken as the test of whether or not we should rerate to 100 per cent. or less. We must, in this context, consider the smaller businesses which are trying to get going, trying to provide employment for those who want it. We all know perfectly well that, today, in the competitive world conditions to which the hon. Member for Gloucester referred, about which I agree, we cannot afford to


put any burden whatever on any unit of industry which may prevent its being able to expand and give employment.
Logically, of course, the case for 100 per cent. rating of industry is absolutely complete, if circumstances remain the same. But we have now to visualise that there are certain places in the country where we want new industries to go. We must, at the same time, take into account the difference, as it appears to a man thinking of setting up a new industry, between an area where he has to pay the full 100 per cent. of rates and an area where he gets a subsidy—it is a subsidy—and has to pay only 50 per cent. of rates. It is an attraction to an employer to go to a place where a concession of that kind is made, whereas, on the other hand, he would have a gamble to face if he had to bear the full burden of rates on his new industry. Testing the matter from that point of view, therefore, one cannot just look at how a local authority would gain and what advantage there would be to local authorities in receiving the extra money. We all realise that there would be a benefit.
We all should like to see education flourish and more money be provided for it. But the very life-blood of our country—the Welfare State, everything—depends upon our being able to keep our industry and our export trade going over the years to come. Nothing matters but that. Everything depends upon it. We cannot, therefore, risk taking any step rashly which might damage our industry and our employment.
As hon. Members have said, we could at once do a great thing for local authorities by giving straight away the 100 per cent., but we might equally damage a certain number of rising industries and a certain number of growing sources of employment. Because the rerating of industry must be done bit by bit and stage by stage, I take the view that Her Majesty's Government are right in doing it by adding, in this Bill, an extra 25 per cent. and not going straight up to the maximum.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I respect very much the view which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) has just put to the Committee. I believe it to be reasonably well known among hon. Members that I myself have

never agreed with industrial derating. When I say that I have never agreed with it, I mean that to apply to the last ten years or so. As opposed to its purpose and effect in conditions thirty years ago when it was brought in, I feel that, today, it is out-dated and outmoded. I never failed to express that view when I served for some years on the Croydon Borough Council. My view was generally known, and, when the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) brought in his Private Member's Bill and it was discussed in the House one Friday, he very kindly asked me to second the Motion, which I was very pleased indeed to do.
Although the view I hold is against my own business interests, I know, taking my own town of Croydon alone, that the cancellation of industrial derating altogther would mean an adjustment of about 9d. in the £ in the rates. One cannot fail to recognise that, in present conditions, this means that the householders and other ratepayers of Croydon are, in effect, subsidising the factories of Croydon which receive the benefit of a certain measure of industrial derating. Although I have expressed that view and put it forward as effectively as I was able on several occasions, I fully appreciate the case which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South, put to us this evening, that we cannot possibly abolish industrial derating in one fell blow.
Arising primarily, I think, from the discussion in the House to which I referred, the Government eventually decided to take the line which they are now taking, namely to ease down derating by stages. I have come to the conclusion that, quite possibly, they may be correct in that view. I still feel, nevertheless, that we must gradually advance during the years ahead to the stage when industrial derating is right out. Quite definitely, it is outdated and outmoded; it is just a question of time when we reach that ultimate objective. I rather felt that my right hon. and learned Friend took very much the same view.

Sir P. Spens: Sir P. Spens indicated assent.

Mr. Harris: In the years to come, we are bound to reach that stage, and it is just a matter of time. I find it difficult to believe that the 100 per cent. cancellation of derating now would be quite the severe blow that is sometimes suggested,


but I quite agree that we cannot really afford to take a risk at the present time.
I have held my present view for some years, but I find it extremely difficult to sit here and listen to some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite. With all respect to every hon. Member, there is no question but that the Opposition had five years, at least, from 1945 to 1950, to do something about it, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) quite rightly said, they did just nothing whatever. I agree that, eventually, when the Conservatives were in power, the hon. Member for Acton came along with a very good Bill which was given a very full discussion in the House, but——

Mr. Sparks: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why his own Government have taken seven years to do something about it?

Mr. Harris: It is fair to say that there was a general review of local government finance in mind, and it was quite understandable that they wished to incorporate this move at the same time in the revision of their local government plan. The answer is that they have done something about it, whereas the Opposition did nothing. They have, at least, eased down derating from 15s. in the £ to 10s. in the £, and, no doubt, they have it in mind, in due time, to ease it down further. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on many occasions make powerful speeches about what should or should not be done, and no one can blame hon. Members on this side for feeling a little hot-tempered about these speeches. It is all very fine for the Opposition to talk in that way, but why did they do nothing about it before?
Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee will accept this further discussion in the fair way in which it has been carried on this afternoon. I will not indulge in arguments about the figures. One does not lightly dare to contradict a chartered accountant in these matters. He may be right or wrong, but I do not think it really affects the total issue. Were the Labour Party suddenly to find itself in the extraordinary position of being in control of this country again, would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite suddenly cancel industrial derating in one

fell swoop, as one assumes from the views expressed this afternoon they automatically would? We all know that it is quite wrong to suggest that they would.
5.30 p.m.
I do not suppose for one moment that they would do that. It is like many of the things that they said when they were in Opposition. When they got into Government, they did nothing about them. We all know that that is politics and that that is what happens. I do not know if the right hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), when he winds up for the Opposition, would like to tell us whether the Labour Party, should they get into power, will automatically immediately cancel industrial derating. It would be very interesting to know.

Mr. Mitchison: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing. I am not a Privy Councillor, by the way. We have stated before each General Election what our policy was and if we have succeeded in getting into power we have carried out that policy. It is not we who said that rents would never be allowed to rise and then introduced a Rent Act. It is not we who said, "We will keep prices steady" and subsequently let them shoot up. We have kept our promises.

Mr. Harris: I was apparently under the misunderstanding that we were talking about rating matters. The hon. and learned Member obviously is trying to divert from the point that I was putting. He still does not answer my question and I do not suppose anyone will answer it. It is: will the Opposition make a pledge to the people that if, unfortunately, they are returned to power, they will automatically and immediately cancel industrial derating? Frankly, I do not believe they would.
Therefore, I look upon this further discussion this afternoon as a continuation of the discussion that we had on the Private Member's Bill, which I think lends a lot of power to the decision that the Government have taken. We are going in the right direction. I would have liked our progress to be faster in many respects, but, so far as the views that I have expressed are being carried out, we are making real progress.

Mr. Austen Albu: I think that the last part of the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) was designed to cover up the fact that he supports the Amendment, although he does not intend to vote for it. It is interesting to note that we have not heard a single argument in support of the continuation of industrial derating in principle. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that he is entirely opposed to industrial derating in principle. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) admitted that industrial derating is a subsidy, but he semed to think that it had a discriminatory effect and that the concession of industrial derating was one of the factors which cause a firm to go to one particular area rather than another. It is not discriminatory at all, and it falls, like the rain, on the just and unjust alike.

Sir P. Spens: The hon. Gentleman will remember that when it was brought in it was difficult to find any industry in 1929 which one could confidently say would continue to flourish.

Mr. Albu: It may be that we are now approaching a similar situation. Under those circumstances, I can fully understand why the Government's advisers are unwilling to give up what they consider to be this last straw at which to clutch. I do not think that industry will get into the position in which it was in the early 'thirties or late 'twenties.
When I was listening to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South I could not help thinking that he was not doing justice to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in offering other types of concessions—for instance, through the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Bill—to encourage firms to go to areas where there is unemployment. We on this side of the Committee support that Bill. I think that it is a far better method of encourageing industries to go to areas where there is unemployment or to take up factory space in places where industries are collapsing for economical or technical reasons, rather than to give this completely indiscriminatory concession, for that is what it is. In present circumstances, I do not think there is any argument for continuing it at all.
Probably the main reason why hon. Members, like the hon. Members for Croydon, North-West and Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), who have local government experience, support this Amendment is because, like all of us, they receive letters from ratepayers' associations who strongly object to the fact that, as ratepayers, they are subsidising local industries. In industrial boroughs like my own constituency most of the owners and managers do not reside in the areas in which their firms operate. A large number of the directors, managers and better-paid employees live in other boroughs. Much of the higher-rated property is not in the local authority area in which the firm is. This is an important factor.
The arguments about costs were, I think, fully dealt with by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). But, however one looks at it, if one takes the difference between the proportion of the total gross national product of £18,000 million or the final product of manufacturing industry of £7,000 million or £8,000 million, the additional cost of abolishing the derating provisions must be obviously a negligible factor. I do not think it is right to draw a distinction between small struggling firms and big firms. To some extent all firms ought to operate under similar conditions of competition. If they cannot compete under the conditions which society imposes, they ought not to be operating. Small firms presumably have low rates and large firms presumably higher rates.
The argument of the hon. Member for Ilford, South seemed to imply that there was some direct comparison between Income Tax and Profits Tax and rates. Of course, that is nonsense. The rates are a fixed cost on the output, while, of course, taxes do not come into operation until the profits are made. One cannot set the one off against the other in the way that the hon. Member was suggesting. If, in fact, partly as a result of abolishing derating, a firm does not make a profit, then it will not pay Profits Tax. In actual fact, under present conditions, many firms will, of course, continue to make very substantial profits, and the addition of the rate burden will be very small.
Many hon. Members seem to have forgotten what the Bill is about. After all, this is a Local Government Bill,


as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said. We are considering in what way local government can be improved and the Government, in their strange way, think that the Bill will give local authorities greater independence. This is a very extraordinary way of giving greater independence, by refusing one of the few sources of income that they might easily receive. If the Government follow the arguments that they have used throughout the Bill, they should accept the Amendment, if they mean that they are trying to give local authorities greater independence.
We must not forget that when we are arguing about what the effect will be on industry and on the Exchequer. The assumption made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South that the Exchequer will inevitably take back whatever the local authorities may gain is a complete contradiction of the intentions of the Government throughout the Bill. I hope we shall hear some stronger arguments from the Minister than we have heard in the past, but I have no doubt that what we shall hear is that he fully agrees with his hon. Friends in principle and does not intend to accept our Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I hope that it will not inconvenience the Committee if I say a word or two at this stage. We have had a wide ranging debate and some excellent speeches from both sides of the Committee. I very much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who clearly has done a great deal of research into the statistics associated with this problem, possibly more research than I have done myself. I will come to one or two statistics later.
I was struck with the zealousness of hon. Members opposite in the cause of the abolition of industrial derating because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Harris) rightly pointed out, they did not display equal zealousness between 1945 and 1951.
There were two or three fallacies which I think coloured a number of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite this afternoon. It has been said by hon. Member after hon. Member that industry

is being favoured by the Government and is being subsidised at the expense of the householder, the shopkeeper, and so on. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said that it was wrong that industry should be subsidised by the householder. I think that the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) said that industry, like other ratepayers, should pay its rates in full.
We must consider the facts. While industry is certainly derated to the extent of 50 per cent., all householders are assessed for rating purposes on 1939 values. Therefore, millions of householders are derated, not only by 50 per cent., but in many cases by 60 or 70 per cent. Then there is the question of commercial premises, shops, offices, cinemas, public houses, and so on. They are, again on the basis of present statute law, rated on current values.

Mr. Sparks: Less 20 per cent.

Mr. Bevins: Precisely, their rates are abated by 20 per cent. So there is some measure of derating there.
The second fallacy upon which I should like to comment is the assumption that if this Government or any future Government were to abolish industrial derating hook, line and sinker, local Government in general would benefit to the extent of the increased rerating of industry. No hon. Member who has seriously studied the history of derating really believes that any Government, no matter what its colour, would be content to increase rerating from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., or from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent., without certain powerful influences in Government demanding that there should be adjustments in Exchequer grants to local authorities.
The third point upon which I should like to comment is the assumption which featured largely in the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), that if only industry were derated, then many local authorities would benefit enormously financially. I do not doubt that there are a considerable number of such cases, but it is only right to remind the Committee that, if we are to consider this matter in proper perspective, the majority of local authorities which would benefit initially by the abolition of industrial derating are those which are situated in heavy industrialised areas.
That is one reason why the abolition of derating is so zealously supported by hon. Members opposite. I do not blame them. But they must remember to take into account and to offset against the increased revenues which would accrue to those local authorities from the abolition of industrial derating, the consequential effects which would inevitably flow to those local authorities' finances through the operation of the rate deficiency grant. If we raise the average rateable value or the income per head of population in these highly industrialised local authorities, quite a considerable number of them which are large beneficiaries of equalisation grants now and may in future be substantial beneficiaries from rate deficiency grants would suffer a reduction in the form of those grants.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Apart from the financial arguments that the hon. Gentleman is advancing, is there not something to be said on the political side having regard to the marked decline that we have experienced in the interest of industrialists in local government since the days of derating?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed; I entirely agree. It is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend that the step which the Government are taking to raise industrial rerating to 50 per cent. will encourage and stimulate many people, on either side of industry, to take a more active participation in local government. I am entirely at one with the hon. Member.
The other comment that I should like to make is upon the tendency, which has shown itself in a number of speeches made in this debate, for hon. Members to indulge in the exercise of showing that certain classes of ratepayers such as industrial ratepayers benefit from certain types of local government services. Exercises of that nature are most unprofitable. We must face the fact that industry, commerce, the householder and all the rest of us have our civic responsibilities in the finencial sense. It is quite absurd to start the argument that people who are childless should be exempt from the education rate or that owner-occupiers should not pay the housing rate, for that is where that line of thought would end.
I should like to give the Committee one or two straight facts which surround

this subject. In the year before derating was introduced, industry contributed about 10 per cent. of the rateable values of local government as a whole. Before the revaluation of two years ago, industry's share of the rate burden had fallen to rather more than 4·4 per cent. The actual amount contributed in rates at that time was only £15 million. After revaluation, when industry was assessed to current values but still derated, it contributed 6·27 per cent. of the total rate burden. Now, the effect both of the revaluation and of the 50 per cent. rerating proposed in the Bill means that industry's share of the total rate burden will rise to approximately 12 per cent. and industry will be paying something like £70 million a year in rates.
Therefore, the Committee will see that industry will shortly be paying an increased share of more than 180 per cent. If the proposal embodied in the present group of Amendments were to be accepted and industry were to be wholly rerated, industry's share of the total rate burden would rise to approximately 19·5 per cent. and the total payments would amount to approximately £130 million.
It is only fair that I should point out that industry's share of the total rate burden under our proposed arrangements will be three times what it was in 1955, as recently as three years ago. Commercial premises will be bearing an increased share of the extent of 7 per cent., whereas householders' share of the burden will have fallen by no less than 20 per cent. during the last two or three years.
We on this side entirely agree that it is desirable, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) rightly said, to give local authorities a greater sense of financial independence. There is no doubt whatever that the complete re-rating of industry would be a considerable step in that direction. I am, however, sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) was right when he said that we cannot look at this problem in isolation. One cannot look at it simply within the context of the future of local government. We have to consider the economic effects of so serious a step as this.
It has been argued this afternoon that industry is more prosperous than ever


before and is certainly prosperous enough to pay full rates. None of my hon. Friends would dissent from that as a generalisation. But especially at a time when the Government are pledged to stabilise the price level, it would be folly to add to industry's burdens. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, that in many industries the payment of full rates would represent a quite small ratio of the total. Averages, however, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is fond of pointing out, are perilous things and the incidence of rerating would, as my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, vary considerably from industry to industry.
I said at the outset that I would try to give the Committee one or two figures. If derating were to be abolished completely, the increase in rates payable by industry would be of the order of £57 million a year. That is the equivalent of a 2 per cent. wage increase over the whole range of manufacturing industry. To look at it another way, it is equivalent to a 2½ per cent. increase in the total import bill of our manufacturing industry.

Mr. Sparks: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not telling the Committee that industry would have to bear all that burden. Those rate payments are allowable against any taxable surplus. The great majority of concerns have a taxable surplus and they would not need to contribute anything like that amount.

Mr. Bevins: I know. I am looking at this, not from the viewpoint of individual firms, but from the point of view of the nation and of our economy.
These rates have to be paid. Nobody in this Committee could foresee what their economic consequences would be, but they might well lead to rising prices. In certain cases, they might well have a marginal effect on certain export trades, and it is conceivable that they would affect the capital investment of some of the smaller firms. It is certainly the view of my right hon. Frmend that these are not risks which the Government should run at this time, when we recognise that our primary responsibility and task is to stabilise prices.
Before I conclude, I should like to refer to one comment by the right hon.

Member for Rochester and Chatham, who opened this debate. The right hon. Member began by saying that his side of the Committee had advocated the rerating of industry for a long time. It is not really a very long time. It is only right to point out that the record of the Labour Party in this respect—I do not mean to be unkind—has been just a little erratic. For example, from 1929, when derating was first introduced, until 1945 the Labour Party was opposed to the derating of industry. Equally, during the Labour Party's period in office from 1945 to 1951, it called an entirely different tune. When in 1948 the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) introduced his Local Government Bill—which was one of the major Bills in the last twenty years affecting rating and valuation and the reshaping of our Exchequer grants—he used the expression: "it is difficult to put the eggs back into the shells now." In 1951, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who obviously knows a good deal about this subject—I have read all his speeches on it—declared that at that time the balance of the argument was against reversing the derating arrangements.
Although the party opposite has now come down in support of the abolition of derating of industry as a whole, I still wonder, like some of my hon. Friends on this side, whether given the opportunity members of the party opposite would be quite so radical as they have pretended this afternoon.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in one or two respects. First, I agree with him that when considering contributions to rates we only get ourselves into endless trouble and confuse the whole issue if we try to measure the extent of the contributions by the extent of the use which a particular contributor makes of the various services, whether fire extinction or education. One must, therefore, proceed on another basis. That other basis, I suggest, is that units, whether individuals or corporations, must contribute in proportion to their resources the value of the hereditament or the profits, all the old standards we know, towards the expenditure of the local community. That is the real basis for the matter.
It is quite true that at present there are anomalies. The individual householder pays on the basis of a modified pre-war valuation, but, as the law now stands, he will have to pay on current values for the year 1961–62 and there- after. The industrialist gets a concession of 20 per cent., unless the Bill is modified, and shops and offices get a concession of 20 per cent.
Let us deal, first, with the argument about the Treasury. When the shops and offices concession was made, the exact opposite happened. The local authorities lost a considerable sum of money and came to the Treasury and said, "You will gain it, because now they will not be able to deduct so much for rates from their trading profits. What about helping us?" The Treasury did not help. There was a Tory Government in office. It was they who were responsible for the concession and it was they who were responsible for the adjustment as between the ratepayer and the taxpayer and they left the ratepayer to carry the lot. More than half that concesson inured not for the benefit of shops, but for the benefit of offices, and the Prudential and other insurance companies and joint stock banks were helped at the expense of the ordinary domestic householder and ratepayer.
That is that side of the picture. It does not by any means follow that the Treasury is entitled to do the exact opposite now and every time in the future, and, whenever a concession is made in favour of local authorities, to take its full whack, and more than its full whack, out of it, as it is doing out of the £30 million or so which is the subject matter of the concession in the Bill. Therefore, what we are talking about is a concession of about, let us say, £60 million, which is about double the shops concession, towards the finances of local authorities out of industry.
6.0 p.m.
I trust that the Committee will bear in mind that the rerating of industry was made at a time of exceptional difficulty, and for the specific reason that industry could not get along without it. That was the one and only reason adduced at the time for making it, and a corresponding concession was given to local authorities, which we need not go into now. Therefore, it was as true then as it is admittedly

true now, to say that, on principle, there is no possible case for the derating of industry. That was admitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and by other hon. Members opposite. There is no doubt about it.
The question now is whether there is any other reason why we should not go the whole hog in this matter. I want to get out of the way a bit of the usual last line of Tory defence. When the party opposite finds itself in an indefensible position it goes back and says, "Well, you did not do what you are asking us to do now." If that will not work, it tries another line. It gets hold of the last Labour Party pamphlet and picks in it any holes it can. It is an infallible sign that the Tory Party has a weak case to answer, and knows it. So we have had it again this time.
I do not think that there is much use in all these niceties, but if we are going into them at all, let us have them straight. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that there was a war, and they treat the post-war Labour Government as if there had not been a war. We had our hands fairly full between 1945 and 1951, and it is only when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in Government for some time that they start to complain that we did not do enough. Yet their complaint at the time was that we did much too much. If we had tried to do all the things they now suggest we might have done at the time, we would indeed have had our hands full.

Mr. Cooper: They did the wrong things.

Mr. Mitchison: I hear the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) say that we did the wrong things. My point is that we did what we thought necessary for the country after a war. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, and many of his hon. Friends, deeply regret the existence of the Welfare State and would prefer to go back to the kind of years after the 1914–18 war, when a Coalition Government made a fine mess of things.
Broadly speaking, we did what we thought right and what the country thought right, and what I believe, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Gentleman and others opposite know was right and was immediately necessary. For six years we


did not deal with the matter, nor for six years did hon. Gentlemen opposite deal with the matter, and it is only now, after more than the time we were in power, that they talk in this way.
Let us see what will happen. It is said that industry cannot bear it. It is said that industry contains some small firms which will go to the wall. Who else pays rates? What about the individual householder? Those who are so solicitous for these small, struggling firms seem to forget that rates are quite a considerable and a rising part of the budget of the ordinary domestic householder and, further, that about their worst fault, as a tax, is that they come down on the small man far more than they do on the large man. If these people would extend to the ordinary domestic householder the solicitude they show so readily to industry, I believe that they would be doing very much more towards an equitable system of local taxation, and in the long run very much more for the good of the country.
What nonsense it is. The hon. Gentleman told us it would amount to a 2 per cent. wages increase. That is one way of putting it, but I have been looking at the National Income and Expenditure statistics for 1957. It so happens that the amount involved would also be about 2 per cent. of the net—after taxation and everything else—profits of companies. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that industry cannot carry this at the moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) pointed out, we have asked time and time again for the figures, all of which the right hon. Gentleman told us he had worked out and none of which he has vouchsafed to us. So we must take the figures we have been given from an older source, which all point the same way, to about one-half of 1 per cent. of turnover. How many industrial firms will be broken by charges of that order? What difference will it make to them compared to the differences which the financial policy of the Government have made to industry in the country? They would prefer to pay their full share of rates if only they could gat back to cheap money, instead of what they are paying now, under Tory financial policy.
Again, let us look at the effects of all this on the local authorities. What we

are considering now are local authorities who are struggling along in the face of rising difficulties because of what this Government have done. The Government have taken away from them the housing subsidies. The Government have doubled, and more than doubled, the cost of their borrowing. The Government, here, there and in every way, as in the example I gave just now, have whittled money away from them, and, while talking of the help that they are to give to local authorities and the value they set upon their activities, have told them, as we heard yesterday from the right hon. Gentleman, that in the long run it all depends on their getting together, showing the right spirit, sporting I suppose the old municipal tie, and carrying on broke to the world, made so by a Tory Government. And then they refuse to put this concession into the Bill.
Then it is said, "We cannot do it at once." There are other Clauses in this Bill. For instance, there is the one about the gainers and the losers, which provides for a most elaborate system of gradation. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were prepared to say that the case is unanswerable, that there own supporters tell them so, that they are prepared to do it but not quite yet, and to put into their Bill an arrangement for providing the first 25 per cent. next year and the remaining 25 per cent. in the years after, there would be nothing left between us. We do not insist that the thing should be done at one fell swoop. That is the effect of these Amendments, but it is a small difference between doing that and doing it in one year or two.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris), let me tell him this. We carry out our promises and we shall do it. Let me also tell him that until we know the extent of the economic mess with which we shall be left by the Government we are not prepared to go into pledges about a question of a year or two on one fiscal measure. No Opposition, if it consisted of sane, prudent and sensible people, as we on this side of the Committee claim to be, could conceivably give such a pledge.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Mr. C. W. Gibson (Clapham) rose——

Mr. Mitchison: I do not wish in any way to discourage anybody, but we have been quite a time on this Amendment and we have other matters to deal with.

Mr. Gibson: I want to make only one or two brief points. The first is that I thought the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary, that to restrict the rate charge on industry to 50 per cent. would have some effect in stabilising prices, was about the most fantastic thing I have heard in the House of Commons. The second is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) seemed to think that derating of industry in 1939 was done to help employment. I remember it as he does, and I remember the fights we had publicly about this proposition of the then Government.
There were other things which the Government of that day did. They raided the Road Fund, and the Minister who was responsible for it is now one of the most revered Members of this House. He reduced the rate on industry to 25 per cent. because it was said that this would increase employment, whereas for the next three or four years we had the worst slump and the worst unemployment we have had in the history of this country.

Sir P. Spens: Under a Labour Government.

Hon. Members: A minority Government.

Mr. Gibson: I have in more than one debate in the House of Commons remarked that the Tory Party seem to have a penchant for twisting history, for stretching it. To suggest that the slumps of the 'thirties were due to the Labour Government is utter nonsense.

Sir P. Spens: I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman remembers as well as I do that the figures of unemployment went up during 1929 and 1930 while the Labour Government were in power, and it was not until there was a Coalition Government that they came down.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order, order.

Mr. Gibson: I beg your pardon, Mr. Hynd. I was drawn off the track.
The argument that we must not rerate industry a full 100 per cent., to save unemployment, is utter nonsense if one

reads history. It has never been fair on the ordinary householders of this country. When industry was derated in 1929 that did not cut the cost of running local authority services. Somebody had to meet that.
As a then very young member of the London County Council, I knew what troubles the Tory Party were having in London in raising rates. Our costs were reduced because industry had a reduction of 75 per cent. in its rates. The cost remained, and indeed went up, and somebody had to pay, so the burden was put on the ordinary householders, where it has been ever since. In fact, what has been happening is that industry has been subsidised for all those years at the expense of the ordinary ratepayer in the ordinary small house in the back street.
This Government have made it worse by recently taking 20 per cent. of the rateable values off shops and business premises. That also has been shoved on to the shoulders of the ordinary householders. I want to put in a plea for the man who pays the rates, the man who cannot dodge paying his rates, the man who cannot put them in as a business expense but has to pay as soon as the demand note comes along or with his weekly rent.
It is about time the House of Commons thought a little more about the charges which the ordinary householders have to meet in order that our local services may be run and may be improved and may be used to make the towns and cities fit places for good citizens to live in.
6.15 p.m.
Even the circumstances which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) referred to have now completely disappeared; we are not in a slump, although we are getting perilously near it. All the signs are there, as they were in 1929. But the fact is that industry is well able to bear the burden of a 100 per cent. charge for rates, and it is right and proper that it should do so. If the Government really want to help local authorities—and I sometimes have my doubts about that—they will rerate industry to the full 100 per cent.
I would like to suggest other ways in which they could help local authorities to raise their rates and lift the burden from the shoulders of the ordinary householder.


They could do so by fixing land values. I have no doubt that I should be pulled up for being out of order if I went further into that question, since it has nothing to do with the Bill, but I think that we shall have to come to it one day.
In present circumstances, the fair and just thing to do for the millions of ordinary people who pay their rates month by month, quarter by quarter, or in their weekly rents, would be to place upon industry the full share of the rates which it bore before 1929 and in respect of which it has been subsidised by the ordinary people ever since. The Amendment will have that effect, and because it has that effect I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Sparks: I would not have sought to rise at this stage had it not been for the fact that I have sat here practically all through the debate, while other Members who have come into the Chamber after me have been called. I have no complaint about that, but I feel that I am entitled to stand upon my rights and make a contribution to the debate.
I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not pay more regard to the burden which ordinary householders in industrial areas are having to share. He tried to convince the Committee that the ordinary householder is not having to bear any extra burden as a result of the fact that industry at the moment pays only 25 per cent. of its rateable value.
That is absolutely untrue. Industry creates a great demand upon the the services of local authorities, and that demand has to be met, in the main, by the ordinary citizens and householders who, at the moment, are facing great problems because of rising rates and prices. At present we see the attempt being made to restrict wage levels while the cost of living proceeds to rise. The problem of this burden upon ordinary householders deserve attention from the Committee, and in my opinion the only adequate way in which that attention can be given is by the adoption of the Amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave a rather wrong impression about the effect of the proposals in the Bill to rerate industry to 50 per cent. as against 25 per cent., of its net annual value. I do not

say that he did so deliberately, but he quoted certain figures. The Bill proposes to increase the payment of industrial rates from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the net annual value, or, in other words, to provide an increased rate revenue of £30 million. The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that of that £30 million the Government will take away £20 million. He very conveniently left that out. Local authorities will benefit not by an additional £30 million but only by less than £10 million.
If the Government propose to increase industrial rating from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the net annual value, I claim that the ordinary householders in industrial areas are entitled to receive the benefit of the whole of that rate income. What the Government are really doing is making a profit out of the proposal. They are taking back £20 million to themselves. The £30 million additional revenue which industry will pay by way of rates is allowable against taxable surpluses, and most of these industrial ratepayers are making a very good taxable surplus, so that of the additional £30 million being provided in rates the Treasury will lose, by way of tax allowance, about £13½ million a year. But they are taking back £20 million, so that they are making a profit of £6½ million for themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us that. He hid that, and gave the impression that the whole of the £30 million would go to local authorities and would help to relieve the ordinary ratepayer.
My constituency is very badly hit by industrial derating. In the past twenty or thirty years industry there has grown rapidly, and it is now one of the most intense industrial concentrations in the country. What do we find there? We find that the drainage and sewage system are quite inadequate to cope with the increased effluent caused very largely by this intense industrial development. We are faced with the problem of having completely to reorganise the drainage system, and it has been estimated that this will cost the ratepayers, who are mainly householders, 2s. 6d. in the £—and that estimate was based upon the financing of the scheme before the interest rates soared to their present level of 6½ per cent.
We claim that as industry creates considerable local authority expenditure in respect of a wide range of services it should pay its fair proportion of the cost of those services. It should be made quite clear that the Government are not giving away very much to the ordinary ratepayers, especially in the industrial areas. They are making a profit for themselves on the side and hoping that nobody will notice what is going on.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) made a case for some division as between young, small and growing industries and well-established industries. He admitted that there were prosperous concerns, such as brewers and tobacco companies, who could well afford to pay 100 per cent. in rates. There is therefore no reason why these large concerns should ride on the shoulders of the young, small and growing industries, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, young and growing industries in the Development Areas are already receiving preference by way of financial assistance from the Government, and they cannot expect it twice over.
If industry were rerated and paying 100 per cent. of the net annual value in a year it would pay approximately £130 million, according to the Parliamentary Secretary. Industry is now making many thousands of millions of pounds in profits, year by year. There never was such a time when profits were so plentiful and so high, and it is absurd to say that if industry were asked to contribute £130 million in rates it would break the back of industrial activity. In fact, industry would not pay £130 million, because that amount would be allowable against any tax surplus, and the net amount would be considerably less.
I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Members opposite have had so little regard for the ordinary householders in industrial areas, who are struggling against an ever-rising rate burden due to rising costs and prices, which have come about as a result of Government policy. Superimposed upon these burdens are the consequences of the Rent Act, and these people are now

having to subsidise the necessary expenditure on social services which in many cases is created by industrial demand. Because of the unfairness of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends towards the householders, and because of his refusal to give ratepayers the complete benefit of rerating industrial properties at 50 per cent. of their net annual value—to say nothing of his refusal to provide that industry shall pay 100 per cent.—I hope that hon. Members on this side of the Committee will divide against the Government proposal and make it clear that we stand for the ordinary householders who are struggling under this increasing rate burden because industry is not paying its fair proportion of the rates.

Mr. Bottomley: Before we finally come to a decision, I would recall to hon. Members opposite who have not been present during this very useful debate that, with the exception of the Minister, not one speaker on either side has said anything against the need to rerate industry to the fullest, and the Minister's case was so weak that I hope that when we go into the Division Lobbies we shall have some support from hon. Members opposite.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I am very sorry to have to rise again, but I really must correct that statement. That is not true. I have listened to every speech made in the Chamber today, and I can pin-point one immediately, that made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), which took the same line as I did.

Mr. Bottomley: With due respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), he was arguing in favour of it, but he said that the time was not now opportune, though he was in favour of it. The Minister did not even say that. His arguments were against the scheme altogether.

Question put, That "fraction of" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 202.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[3.38 p.m.



NIL





TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Awbery and Mr. T. W. Jones.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
du Cann, E. D. L.


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, P.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Duncan, Sir James


Alport, C. J. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Duthie, W. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Campbell, Sir David
Elliott,R. W.(New castle upon Tyne,N.)


Atkins, H. E.
Carr, Robert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Baldwin, A. E.
Cary, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Balniel, Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fell, A.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, s.)
Cooper, A. E.
Fort, R.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Freeth, Denzil


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bidgood, J. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. A. E.
Gammans, Lady


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bingham, R. M.
Cunningham, Knox
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dance, J. C. G.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Viscountess
Glover, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Godber, J. B.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Deedes, W. F.
Gough, C. F. H.


Braine, B. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gower, H. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Green, A.




Gresham Cooke, R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robertson, Sir David


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robson Brown, Sir William


Gurden, Harold
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McKibbin, Alan
Roper, Sir Harold


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Ma[...]lean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Sharples, R. C.


Hay, John
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Maddan, Martin
Speir, R. M.


Hesketh, R. F.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mathew, R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mawby, R. L.
Storey, S.


Hope, Lord John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hornby, R. P.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Howard, John (Test)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Hurd, A. R.
Neave, Airey
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kaberry, D.
Page, R. G.
Wall, Patrick


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peel, W. J.
Webbe, Sir H.


Kershaw, J. A.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Kimball, M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Kirk, P. M.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wood, Hon. R.


Leather, E. H. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woollam, John Victor


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
ates, William (The Wrekin)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, David Eastlelgh



Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ramsden, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Linstea[...], Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.
Mr.Oakshott and


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, D. L. M.
Colonel J. L. M.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[6.31 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Aitken, W. T.
Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholls, Harmar


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Arbu[...]hnot, John
Gurden, Harold
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'[...]h, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Armstrong, C. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Atkins, H. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barter, John
Hay, John
Page, R. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Partridge, E,


Bell, Philip (Bol[...]on, E.)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Peel, W. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hesketh, R. F.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pitman, I. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Mitt E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hope, Lord John
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hornby, R. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Ramsden, J. E.


Braine, B. R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rawlinton, Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Redmayne, M.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howard, John (Test)
Renton, D. L. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hurd, A. R.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Robertson, Sir David


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, Sir Henry
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Russell, R. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jones, Rt, Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Sharples, R. C.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Joseph, Sir Keith
Shepherd, William


Cooke, Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooper, A. E.
Keegan, D.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Speir, R. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. A. E.
Kimball, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kirk, P. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Dance, J. C. G.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leather, E. H. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Leburn, W. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Tee[...]ing, W.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McAdden, S. J.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McKibbin, Alan
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fort, R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Freeth, Denzil
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Gammans, Lady
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Marshall, Douglas
Webbe, Sir H.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Glover, D.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Godber, J. B.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhart, Philip
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Hon. R.


Gough, C. F. H.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Woollam, John Victor


Gower, H. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)



Graham, Sir Fergus
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Legh and Mr. Baryan







NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.


Awbery, S. S.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Healey, Denis
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Beswick, Frank
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Parker, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Paton, John


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pearson, A.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hoy, J. H.
Peart, T. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, William


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech(Wakefield)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shin well, Rt. Hon. E.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, J. D.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lewis, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Marcus
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Thornton, E.


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Donnelly, D. L.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Dye, S.
Mahon, Simon
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, T. E.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Messer, Sir F.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fletcher, Eric
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A,


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.
Woof, R. E.


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, F. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)



Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. J. T. Price.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(ADJUSTMENTS TRANSITIONAL ON COMING INTO EFFECT OF PART I.)

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): The next Amendment selected is the second of the three Amendments

in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low)—in page 14, line 14, to leave out "first year" and to insert "years". I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment with the following Amendment in the name of the same


right hon. Gentleman—in line 16, to leave out from the first "section" to the end of line 20.

Sir Roland Robinson: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out "first year" and to insert "years".
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not wish to move the first of these three Amendments but to base our arguments this time on the second Amendment, which I am now moving, and to which the third is consequential. Therefore, we should be very happy to discuss the whole problem at once.
The purpose of our Amendments is to extend the transitional period under the Act to such time as may be specified by the regulations made under the Act. Later, on Report stage, we hope that we may have the opportunity, if these Amendments are carried, of suggesting a period of five years for the period of transition. That matter will be open to discussion, and we are putting it forward only as a suggestion.
The principles which we have at stake were given full discussion last night on an Amendment which was so forcibly and ably moved by my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low). Out of that discussion last night there emerged the fact that we who mainly come from the holiday resorts feel that we represent areas which have been very highly assessed where rates are concerned, and which are already bearing quite a heavy burden. We are perfectly willing to meet the burden which we have had to carry throughout the years, and we are not asking that any extra money should be given to us other than what we have at the present time. We are simply asking that, because of this new Local Government Bill, we should not have to make a larger contribution from our own rates.
On the other hand, there was a strong difference of opinion, coming mainly from the other side of the Committee, and led, in the first place, by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who took the view very strongly that we in the resorts were very grossly under-assessed and should pay more rates. That view was supported by quite a number of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
I was interested last night when my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) invited the Minister to speak in her constituency. I think my right hon. Friend and I would be prepared to give a like invitation to any hon. Members on the other side of the Committee who feel so strongly that we are not paying our share of the rates burden. We would like them to say that in our constituencies, and we would be more delighted still if they would instruct the Labour Party candidates in the current elections to come out quite honestly and say that that is the policy of the party opposite. However, I do not think that they would want to do that. They would prefer many of the things said last night not to be said until after the elections are over.
I must tell the Minister that we who are taking the view supported in this series of Amendments have been amongst his most loyal supporters, and that we are only coming out strongly here because we feel a very real sense of injustice. We think that that is something he should bear in mind, because we have stood by him in good times and bad, and there have been bad times, and it is only because we think that a mistake is being made that we are coming out so strongly in this matter today. We have supported my right hon. Friend throughout the whole of this Bill. We agree with the view which he has put forward that local authorities, as far as possible, should run their own shows, but this will make it difficult for us to run them as we would want to run them, and as he would want them run, if at the beginning of a new scheme he is taking a very substantial sum of money from us.
Hon. Members opposite take a very easy view that resorts are very rich areas. They come and see us in holiday times, when people are happy and we are putting on our shows, but they forget the hard work done for their entertainment, and, above all, they forget the long weary months in winter, when the hotels are empty, when the catering houses are closed and when we have long unemployment queues. I think these things ought to be made very clear when taunts are made that we are rich boroughs and should jolly well pay more.
I think the truer thing to say is that, by and large, most of the holiday resorts


have a very high rateable value, and that is the reason why the amount of the rate in the £ appears to be lower than it is elsewhere. In fact, we are paying per head far more than the average throughout the whole of the country. My right hon. Friend gave comparable figures last night between Blackpool and the average, and the fact stands out that per head we are paying £2 18s. 9d. more than the average in the country. I hardly need to stress, as we have stressed before, that we are prepared to bear that extra burden, but we ask that it should not be increased.
6.45 p.m.
We are all very much concerned about the development of educational facilities throughout the country. Pressure has been brought from all sides that the same educational facilities should continue to be available. The town which I represent is paying 89s. 11d. per head for education. The average throughout the country is 81s. 3d. We are therefore paying 8s. 8d. more than the average. I believe that Bourneimouth pays rather higher than we do. After the first two years Blackpool will be paying about 10d. in the £ more in rates. That means that our ratepayers will be asked to pay a higher rate for exactly the same services as they are receiving today. It will not be easy to put that across.
We believe that the town hall should have these new powers, but it will be extraordinarily difficult for us to face the future without terrible difficulty if we have to carry on the same standard of education and the same amenities, while, as the result of the Bill and of the way in which this scheme is worked out, being forced to put up rates. Many of these areas are not so rich as some hon. Members think. Some places may feel that they cannot bear the burden at all.
I have listened with great interest to the discussion. I would remind hon. Members that we are already paying to the full. The industry in the resorts is the tourist industry, and there is no derating for it. Our hotels are high-rated. Catering institutions and entertainment places like the Blackpool Tower pay thousands of pounds in rates. This industry has had no relief from derating. The ordinary citizen still has to pay a high rate to get the facilities that we have developed. That is why we ask the

Minister to give us his help. Thousands of retired people come from all over the country to live in Blackpool. I was interested in an earlier speech from the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who truly said that rates are quite a considerable and rising part of the budget of the small householder. It is for the small householder that we are making an appeal. It is not just that our small householders should have to bear so great a burden in comparison with householders in the rest of the country.
I would refresh the mind of the Minister in regard to differences in rateable values. My right hon. Friend spoke of a temporary bungalow in St. Helens which was rated at £12. The figure for a similar bungalow in Blackpool is £22. We pay £3 11s. 6d. more for a like bungalow. Here is an injustice. We have all seen the hypothetical figures which were put up; it is easy to say that they may not be so and are hypothetical. They were, m fact, figures produced by the Minister, the statisticians and the mathematicians of his Department who are surely some of the best rates experts in the country.
These figures have put us on notice. We have to look at what the position is going to be. We have raised this matter time and time again. In spite of what was said from the Opposition benches, the Minister knows full well that for nine months or longer we have been raising this matter with him and his colleague. There has been plenty of opportunity for him to find a formula which would help us. No political principles are at stake, but only a matter of finding a fair, just method of working out a measure of equality between town and town and between man and man.
We come to the Minister with this Amendment and place ourselves very much in his hands. We are asking for an extension of the transitory period in order to bridge the situation. I hope he will listen to our plea and try to give help where it is needed. We will bear the burden which we already have, although it is larger than it is elsewhere, but we ask that it be not increased.

Mr. William Teeling: We are making a mistake in referring only to seaside and holiday resorts, because other towns are very much


involved in these problems. I think that my right hon. Friend realises that.
I took no part in the debate on this subject yesterday, because plenty of others were doing so, but I was interested to note some of the criticisms by the Opposition. This is not a sudden rush of Conservative Members pressing their Minister. For quite a long time we have been trying to do this in private. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicholson) spoke in Committee for the areas that were seriously involved. We were not to know that we should not get the support of the Minister when we put forward our problem. It was too late when we found that the Minister was not particularly sympathetic.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That lets the cat out of the bag.

Mr. Teeling: When we found the Minister was not supporting us we were half way through the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch did very noble work for all our towns, and for my own area in particular, which supplied a good deal of information which was valuable to my hon. Frind and was used by him. The Minister therefore knows full well what our problems are.
Another thing of particular interest was when a certain hon. Member of the Opposition told us that we really ought to have higher rates. That is particularly interesting in view of the fact that Labour councillors and their supporters in Brighton have been saying that they may win Brighton as a Labour council next Thursday. One of the best ways to make certain that they will not is for every newspaper connected with the area to point out that Labour's main ambition will be to increase the rates.
I cannot see why holiday resorts should be considered to be rich. Surely cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool and other large industrial areas are the rich places. In the old days the idea was that industrial areas were poor. Everybody was poor there. I think we have far more poor people living in Brighton than live in Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester. It is much easier to find employment in those cities than in Brighton, where we have no factories worth talking about. Like Blackpool, we have

not had the advantages that industrial towns have had. At the moment, Brighton has double the amount of unemployment as compared with the national average. That will not make it easy for us if we find ourselves with considerably higher rates to pay.
I want my right hon. Friend to realise that we are all very serious about this matter and that even if our numbers are not enough to affect any vote in this Committee we deserve to be treated with as much sympathy as any other part of the country. When about £10 million is to be divided over the country as a whole, why should something be taken from us? Why take from an area to which people go in the autumn of their lives to live on the small, middle-class incomes that they have been able to save? It is very hard that our Government should be responsible for this sort of thing when they have said that they are doing everything to help. These people are suffering worse than anybody from the rising cost of living. Why should the Government put this particular burden upon us?

Sir Charles Taylor: Ever since the end of the war, Governments have been paying lip-service to the tourist industry and to the home holiday industry. My constituency was largely evacuated during the war and compulsorily. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) make scathing remarks about seaside resorts, particularly as he was Deputy-Regional Commissioner for the South-Eastern area during the war, and should know something about these resorts and how they suffered as a result of evacuation and bombing.
Only after much hard work on the part of our people, running small boarding houses, businesses, hotels, etc., have we recently been able to get back to normal. It has been done by hard work and determination. I admit that some rich people may be living in my constituency, but there are many more living in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and the other great cities.
7.0 p.m.
I should remind the Committee that there is a very high incidence of bankruptcy among the small boardinghouse keepers and the small hotel keepers throughout the country. Therefore, one


cannot say that those who run boardinghouses and small hotels at the seaside resorts, who have a season of, perhaps, only three or four months during the year, are living lives of luxury. The people who run those establishments are not rich. They are not themselves bound by the provisions of the Catering Wages Act. They are willing to work long hours and put in a great deal of time to make a fair and reasonable living in the short time at their disposal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) has said, there is no derating of hotels compared with industry. They are not treated in the same way as a factory or a business. In fact, the only way that any kind of similar relief can be obtained for a hotel that closes down during the winter is to move out all the furnishings and furniture into store, which obviously is not possible.
Some of the northern resorts of Belgium, Holland and France do not have any better climate than we do and they have no better amenities than we have, except, perhaps, a casino, although it is not everybody who wants a casino. Their Governments, however, seem to have done everything they can to try to get holiday trade from here and from other countries of Europe, so that people will spend their money in these European holiday resorts.
We are not asking the Government for any additional money. We are perfectly prepared, certainly in my constituency and others on whose behalf hon. Members have spoken, both today and last night, to compete with these European holiday resorts on level terms, but we feel that this additional blow to our holiday resorts is too much. Therefore, I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) began his speech by reminding the Committee that we are not solely concerned with seaside resorts. The seaside resorts form perhaps about one-half of the category of town of which we are speaking. The others are inland watering places, spas, cathedral cities and some of the larger market towns—the heartland, if I may so describe it, of the Conservative Party. They are the Baedeker towns of Britain. To them, this part of the Bill appears to be another Baedeker raid and this is a

Baedeker Amendment. All that we are seeking to do is to restore, before it is too late, an element of justice which, I feel sure, my right hon. Friend the Minister would want us to have.
My right hon. Friend has been most patient with us throughout the last twelve months when we have pressed our case and he has gone into the problem with the greatest care. In spite of that, however, he has not been able to meet us on any significant point.
Speaking for myself, I am not putting up this battle, for that is what it is, merely to gain a little popularity, which, goodness knows, I badly need in my constituency. I believe, and I have demonstrated my belief on other occasions, that when a Member is not sincerely convinced by the case put forward by his constituents, he has no right to come to the House of Commons and speak with their voice but without his own mind. In this case, however, I am utterly convinced by the case which has been put up to me by my local authority. I live there. I know the people. I know exactly what they are feeling and fearing and I feel obliged to reflect those feelings and fears in this Committee. If I did not do so, truly I would not know the meaning even of a representative, let alone of a delegate, to the House of Commons.
The case has been fairly and fully made for the position of the resort towns. I wish to devote this short speech to an examination of the remarks which my right hon. Friend made yesterday. The Committee may remember that he asked us to consider three questions. The first was:
are the main changes beneficial in themselves?
To that, I would unhesitatingly answer "Yes". The second question was:
can they be introduced without violent and quite unjustifiable changes in the rate burden?
To that, I would say that in the great majority of cases the answer is "Yes". In the category of authority that we are discussing, however, it is, "No".
My right hon. Friend's third question was:
are there satisfactory arrangements within the Bill for gradually introducing the financial effect of any changes?


To that question, my reply would be that the arrangements are not sufficiently satisfactory.
During the last 24 hours, a new note has crept into our discussion of this subject. There has been a suggestion that in some way or other, one of the purposes of the Bill is to remedy a past injustice. There has been the suggestion that until this moment, certain authorities, of which, presumably, mine is one, have been getting too big a slice of the national cake and that certain other authorities, mainly represented by hon. Members opposite, have been receiving too little a share of what the Exchequer has to give towards their expenses. I cannot see that there is any reason for that argument.
My right hon. Friend said yesterday that any major scheme of this nature
is bound to result in some authorities getting rather more and some rather less."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 971–2.]
I see why some should get more and I am glad that they are getting more. I fail to see why any should get less. Why should they get less when there is another £9 or £10 million available for distribution? Why should they get less when it is within the power of the Minister, or of any future Minister, at any moment he wishes, to increase the aggregate sum which is to be distributed in the way of the general grant?
The whole purpose of our Amendment is to suggest to the Minister and the Committee that no authority should be obliged either to raise its rate burden to a level which its citizens cannot afford without hardship or to cut down its present local services. We say that if there is to be a deficiency it should be made up from the Exchequer or from a more equitable distribution of the extra money which is available.
My right hon. Friend had two answers to this proposition. He said that by the Bill he has created
the skeleton of a formula which will be flexible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 974.]
Let us pursue that analogy. If my body were reduced to a skeleton, which it soon may be if the Bill goes on much longer, it is true that my skull could still be rotated upon my vertebrae and that a man could lift the bones of my arms and

flex my fingers, but nobody could alter the proportions between my head and my body and my legs. Those are fixed.
A better analogy of what we are now in the process of doing is to say that we are constructing a framework and solidifying the joints. When we have passed this stage we shall not be able to tamper with that framework at all. All we can do is to make certain adjustments within it. How can my right hon. Friend, or any future Minister, within the terms of the formula, make adjustments which will remove the anomaly and the injustice of which we are complaining? It will not be possible.
It could be said that he could give a fantastic weighting for elderly people, which is itself part of the formula and which would certainly benefit our towns, but it is inconceivable that he could give such weighting to that element that we should be compensated for all the other ways in which we lose.
The Minister's second argument was that it is impossible at this time to foresee exactly what is likely to occur after 1961 and that until that time we shall have any loss that we eventually suffer made up in the first year to the extent of 100 per cent. and in the second year to the extent of 90 per cent. I wonder why the year 1961 is assumed to be that in which the whole picture will change. Again, we have been given two reasons. My right hon. Friend mentioned yesterday the revaluation of house property. But is it very likely that the houses of a seaside resort will be valued at a lower rate than they are at the moment? Is it likely that we shall gain by that process? The probability surely is that we shall lose still further.
It was said, secondly, that Clause 15, which we are discussing, allows for the possibility of extending the period of grace and that we must not assume that, because in the second year only 90 per cent. compensation is made there will be no compensation at all in further years. That is not much comfort to us when the Bill says that it is possible to make no compensation at all in those subsequent years.
There is a further factor which we on this side of the Committee must consider very seriously, and it is the possibility that by 1961 there may be a Labour Government. When one takes out an


insurance policy one has to allow for the most fantastic possibilities, and that is one of them. We know very well, from the attitude of memberw of the Labour Party, what they are likely to say to us if we go to them cap in hand in 1961. They are not likely to have the same sympathy with the Conservative towns of Bournemouth and the other seaside resorts as my right hon. Friend has had with their towns in the Bill.
I sometimes wonder whether, in the privacy of their party committee, Labour Members have not reconsidered the wisdom of stubbornly opposing a Bill which brings such inestimable benefits to their own constituencies. We shall not get from them any return of the gain which my right hon. Friend is now handing over to them.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred yesterday to this demonstration from this side of the Committee as an "extraordinarily foolish affair." It is extraordinarily foolish to the hon. and learned Member only because he foresees the possibility that my right hon. Friend may be persuaded to take away a penny or two from the 5d. which Kettering is receiving out of the Bill. I wonder whether that is a very statesmanlike or unselfish attitude.
We have put down the Amendment and we hope that the Minister will accept it. This is our last effort to persuade him to meet our argument in a way which he considers equitable and which will give us something to tell our constituents about the justice of the Conservative Party.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams: I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) mentioned that it was not only the seaside resorts which suffered under the implications of the Bill and which would receive a benefit were the Minister to accept the Amendment. On the page in the White Paper issued by the Minister in February, 1958, the name of my constituency appears and there are several other constituencies which are affected in a similar manner to my own—East Ham, Gloucester, Reading and Rotherham. I am surprised that we have not had some comment from hon. Members representing those constituencies to ensure that justice is done to them as well as to those represented by Conservatives.
I do not propose to go into a detailed examination of the method by which these grants are being calculated. I wish to detain the Committee for only a very few moments while I make one point. My constituency, Exeter, will suffer a loss of over £50,000 a year by the introduction of the direct grant system. I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the difference which exists between the block grant received by Exeter and that received by Barnsley. I mention those two cities because I represent Exeter and because Barnsley has a similar total population to Exeter: Barnsley has a total population of 75,300 and Exeter has a total population of 76,900. The grant which Exeter receives under the Government's proposals is £357,000, while Barnsley will receive £606,000. It is this extraordinary disparity to which I wish to address myself in the few moments for which I shall detain the Committee.
One of the main reasons for the considerable increase in the Barnsley grant is that there are more children in Barnsley than in Exeter. As in the case of so many of the seaside resorts, a number of people come to Exeter to retire and the population of children is not so great. There are about 10,500 children on the rolls of our schools in Exeter, compared with 14,900 in Barnsley. The amount of the grant received by Barnsley is two-thirds more than that received by Exeter, although the number of children is well below 50 per cent. more. I wonder whether, in his reply my right hon. Friend, would give an explanation of this discrepancy.
The trouble about this question of the size of the grant for particular county boroughs arises from the method by which the factors are arrived at. The highly rated areas, such as the seaside resorts about which several of my hon. Friends have spoken, and such cities as Exeter, suffer because they receive no benefit under the rate deficiency grant, which, of course, takes the place of the old Exchequer equalisation grant. In addition, the rate product deduction factor bears heavily on a county borough which is highly rated.
I do not want to enlarge on the fact that cities such as my own, and seaside resorts, also, have to cater for a number of people who do not live within their boundaries. That aspect of the matter


was adequately considered yesterday. Nevertheless, I am certain that if this burden on the seaside resorts and such cities as my own is not lightened, there may be a great temptation for local authorities, in order to ease the burden on the ratepayers, to cut down their facilities for education. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something to mitigate my fears and those of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Graham Page: Those of us who have lived with this Bill for about 80 hours in Standing Committee know what very great study and care my right hon. Friend has given not only to the general principle of the general grant but to the details of the formula by which are to be calculated both the basic grant and the supplementary grant, and, too, the sincerity with which he has put forward the argument in favour of it in Committee. I, for one, would be very reluctant to alter the formula which has been worked out so carefully or to tamper with the principle of the general grant.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) and my other hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment have put a very strong case which undoubtedly arouses sympathy far beyond the bounds of the seaside resorts. Their case may well apply not only to the seaside resorts but to towns such as the university towns and inland spas and what one may call the show places, such as Stratford-on-Avon.
Their argument seems to me to boil down to one main factor, that at certain times of the year these towns have to provide for three or four times their normal population. Incidentally, they are towns in which a very great number of retired people live on fixed incomes. My right hon. Friend said, in effect if I understood him aright, that he could meet this sort of problem, and he put it in a phrase with which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has made some play, as has also my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson); but I think that his phrase expresses what is intended by the formula in the Bill. My right hon. Friend said:

The manner in which the Government have sought to deal with the matter is to write into the Bill the skeleton of a formula which will be flexible and adjustable when each general grant order is made in the light of the circumstances at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 974.]
So one looks in Part II of the First Schedule and the provisions relating to the basic grant and the supplementary grant to see in what way those problems are met. Certainly the problem of retired population is met to a great degree in paragraph 3 of Part II by provision of a supplementary grant for the number in the population over 65. My hon. Friends have put forward such a strong case that I do not think any Minister could refuse to give a reasonable weighting which would compensate any local authority which might be, if I may so put it, overburdened with elderly people.
Then one turns to further paragraphs in that part of the Schedule, and I believe that the Minister, operating these supplementary grants, could very easily give weight to my hon. Friend's arguments. There is provision in paragraph 5 whereby a supplementary grant is available for an extra number of persons per acre. I do not use the word "population", fecause I think the Minister may be bound by the census figures of population; and, moreover, in paragraph 5 the phrase "number of persons" is used. In other paragraphs of that part of the Schedule the Minister is given power to make regulations as to how the number of persons shall be calculated.
If my right hon. Friend is convinced, as indeed I am sure many of us are, by the very sound case put forward by my hon. Friends from the seaside resorts, if he is convinced that that case may apply to other towns than the seaside resorts, could he not use the formula in that Schedule relating to the numbers of persons in the population and to the weighting for elderly people to meet that case? I am, frankly, endeavouring to pour oil on troubled waters. I believe that there is no need for these troubled waters. I believe that the Minister has power to do exactly what my hon. Friends want him to do, and I believe that they have made out such a case that no Minister could refuse to assist them.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I want to detain the Committee only for two minutes in support of the Amendment.


It has been rightly said that this is not merely a problem limited to seaside resorts. I want to come to what I believe to be the fundamental fallacy which underlies the Minister's approach to this matter. It certainly was the case, I suppose, in the past that the coastal areas were generally wealthier than the industrial areas, but what the right hon. Gentleman appears to have failed to recognise is that since those days there has been a social revolution.
The money today is in the industrial areas. That is where the wealth of the country is being created, and it is not the fact that the people who live in the coastal resorts today have the money which they used to have in the past. They may not, perhaps, contribute to the production of the country as those in the industrial areas do, but most of them have done so in their time, and they have earned their right to their rest, and have gone to the seaside resorts to live in the expectation of being able to live out the rest of their lives without the financial worry which this Bill in its present form may impose upon them.
We cannot look for sympathy from hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who naturally suppose that the areas which return, in the main, Conservative Members must be wealthy parts of the country. The reason why most of them return Conservative Members is that they were ruined in six years of Socialism. They hope for and look to this Government to give them relief. They do not understand or see any justice in the idea, and nor do those of us who represent them, that because they were once prosperous the seaside resorts should now be milked to subsidise wealthy industrial areas.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this, and to realise that those of us who are critical of him in this matter are in earnest about it and really do feel that they must call upon him to change his mind.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have no doubt whatever about the earnestness of the speeches which have been delmvered and I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) that no one appreciates more than I the shifts in prosperity which have taken place—shifts, if I may say so, between the seaside

resorts themselves. Certainly some of them have lost in prosperity since 1939; some may have gained, I do not know.
The point in the case which has been put to me which I find difficult to follow is that these areas are said to be very highly assessed. We have now got assessments on a universal basis. There is central valuation for rating. We have an elaborate provision for appeals so that, if the machinery is working properly, everybody throughout the country should be fairly assessed, which could not have been said in days gone past when individual local authorities were their own assessment authorities.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) spoke of temporary bungalows. The reason temporary bungalows may be assessed higher in some places than in others is that it might be, and propably is, pleasanter to live in a temporary bungalow in a certain situation than in other situations. I do not want to say anything against St. Helens during a period when it is not represented in this House, but we can all think of places where we would sooner be in a temporary bungalow. If we go to a more pleasant place we have to pay higher rates.
7.30 p.m.
My hon. Friends have made it perfectly clear that they are not here asking for extra money from the Exchequer. In this the Amendment differs from one which my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) will remember we discussed in the Standing Committee. Then my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied to another Amendment of a different character, which sought to ensure that during the transitional period the losses of losing authorities should be made up, not by taking from the gaining authorities, but by taking from the Treasury. That case was argued on the ground that what the gaining authorities were gaining represented an act of belated justice and, therefore, they should not be kept out of their money any longer.
I am not saying for a moment that precise justice is done between each pair of local authorities by any formula. I think this Bill, broadly, is going to establish a fairer distribution than hitherto. I have particularly in mind that the system of rate deficiency grant is likely to give


those benefits more precisely where they are needed than the old system of Exchequer equalisation grants. I would again remind the Committee that on this Amendment we are not, as on last night's Amendment, to direct our attention only to seaside resorts. Of all the 1,400 local authorities, a much larger number will gain than will lose under the Bill. Nevertheless, there will be quite a fair number of losers, going far beyond the group of a dozen or so seaside authorities on whose behalf my hon. Friends have spoken.
I think we have got to consider carefully, all of us, whether it is right that we should continue for a period of five years—I think my hon. Friend suggested that—a transitional scheme under which money will be held back from those who are gaining authorities under the Bill in order to ensure that for a period as long as five years there shall be no losing authorities. We must bear in mind that there are authorities which have felt a genuine sense of grievance from the system of rating for electricity, for instance, which we are altering, and from other matters. I stand by this general principle, that the new system of distribution, broadly speaking, will be fairer and more just than we have had hitherto.
One of my hon. Friends suggested that the tourist industry, on which the seaside resorts so largely live and thrive, was unkindly treated by successive Governments and that they never got anything out of it. He said that industry enjoyed no benefit from derating, whereas productive industry generally does. Surely there he was going astray because hotels and most guest houses do enjoy the benefit of 20 per cent. derating under the 1957 Act——

Sir C. Taylor: Not to the same extent as industrial premises.

Mr. Brooke: It really was not right to contend that there is no derating at all for hotels in those places. I hope my hon. Friend will grant that it was a good thing from the point of view of the hotel and tourist industry that the 1957 Act was passed and the 20 per cent. derating was granted.

Sir C. Taylor: I was, of course, comparing them with other industrial premises.

Mr. Brooke: I want to revert to the point about the scope of the effect of any such Amendment. I have been looking at the figures. It is by no means the case that all seaside places and "Baedeker towns", as they were described, are losers, whereas the rest of the country comprises gainers under the Bill. The Amendment suggests that during the period, not of one year but of five years, we should take money away from the gaining authorities. Among those I see Canterbury, which I certainly should have thought would be classified as a Baedeker town. There are also Plymouth and Yarmouth, which I certainly should have thought were by the sea. I notice South Shields, Tynemouth, Wallasey and Worcester. So much has been said to me, and I am so keenly aware of the state of the Tyne, that I would hesitate to say that Newcastle was on the sea.

Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend had better not.

Mr. Brooke: I know it sufficiently to regard it as Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Worcester might well be described as a Baedeker town. These towns are gainers under the Bill. I think some of my hon. Friends had in mind that the Bill militated particularly against Conservative authorities.

Dame Irene Ward: So it does.

Mr. Brooke: They fear that a future Government, of a different character, would have no sympathy with these losing authorities and might be prepared to treat them as harshly as they liked. This is the first time I have heard it suggested that the County Boroughs of Rotherham or East Ham are Conservative authorities. I hope that East Ham will soon be a Conservative authority, but it is not at the moment. It really is not the case that we can tell by whether a borough is Conservative or Labour in its policy that it is a loser or a gainer under this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) referred specifically to the comparison between Barnsley and Exeter. On the spur of the moment, I could not reply in detail to the questions he raised on how the difference came about. I have not got in my head the actual rate poundages for the two places in the current year. I think I am right


in saying that the rate poundage in Exeter last year was 14s. 10d. in the £ and that in Barnsley it was 20s. I can well imagine that Clause 9 of the Bill, to which we have just agreed, might quite substantially increase the product of a penny rate in Barnsley, more so than in Exeter, through Barnsley having a greater proportion of derated industry. If that is so, it would tend to explain why Barnsley might appear to be a gaining authority through its rate level falling, even though there might not be very much difference in the way those two boroughs fared in respect of Government grants under the Bill. One has to take all these matters into consideration.
I really do not see how we could, in fairness, say that the transitional arrangements for 1959–60 were to extend for a further period of years. I will not repeat that dangerous phrase about the skeleton of the formula, but I will re-emphasise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has done, the flexibility of the arrangement. It will be when each general grant Order is made that we must carefully examine all the figures to be prescribed in connection with each of the items, so as to produce as fair a result as possible.
I can certainly say that when we lay the first general grant Order, in the autumn of this year, we shall review all those figures. We shall not just take them as they were in the 1957 White Paper and serve them up again without thorough re-examination. As I have stressed on many occasions, that formula is so flexible that one can take virtually any proper consideration into account in composing and utilising it.
There is one further point. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) asked me last night—but took me unawares—whether the regulations to be made under Clause 15 for the transitional arrangement for 1961 onwards were to be subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House. I could not then see in my mind's eye that portion of the Act. I think that that was understandable because, having looked it up, I realise that it does not come in this Bill at all. In fact, I was quite right in thinking that the regulations are subject to Parliamentary control and to annulment on a Prayer, but that is not specifically provided for in the Bill. Clause 16

applies the 1948 Local Government Act to the making of such regulations, so that I can say that under the Bill as it stands, they would be subject to annulment by Prayer.
I have been giving thought overnight to this point, and I am inclined to the view that these regulations will be of such considerable and widespread importance that there should be no question of their just slipping through with, perhaps, nobody noticing them and wishing to debate them by praying against them. I have it in mind to propose that we should amend the Bill so as specifically to ensure that the transitional grant regulations made under Clause 15 shall require an affirmative Order of the House and, therefore, whatever Government might bring them forward would know that they had to explain them to the House at the outset of the debate, and defend them at the end of it. If I have time, I will put down an Amendment for the Report stage of this Bill. If not, the Government will move an Amendment of that kind in another place.
I hope that what I have said will have convinced my hon. Friends that I am taking this matter very seriously, and that I am anxious to do all I can to ensure that justice is done. I do not believe that one could truly do justice simply by "freezing" the first year's transitional arrangements for a further period but, when the time comes, I shall certainly carry out everything that I have promised to do in my speech.

Mr. Mitchison: I do not propose to take up much of the time of the Committee, but I must say that it has been very amusing to sit here and to listen to the hon. Members opposite. They did not vote last time, and they will not vote this time, and their constituents will have watched, I hope, with a somewhat critical enthusiasm, what, at most, was a demonstration with a minimum of force and, at the least, was simply a political mannequin parade. Really it was very funny. I found it most amusing.
7.45 p.m.
I particularly liked their proposition that, because these seaside towns had a heavy rate burden per head they were entitled to some special relief, not at the expense of the Government but at that of the other local authorities, including, for instance, all the industrial areas like


Barnsley or Barrow-in-Furness which have to carry a burden of services totally unknown to such places as Bournemouth and Brighton. They have a far more difficult job to do with far fewer resources.
Of course, the reason for the rateable value per head being higher in Bournemouth and Brighton is that, on the whole, they have better houses and more comfortable conditions. It relates simply to buildings. It may be that people there carry on their businesses unfortunately or foolishly and go bankrupt in larger numbers there than do people in other places, but that has nothing whatever to do with rating. Rating is simply a question of a uniform valuation of property.
It is not these people in Bournemouth, Brighton and the rest who really suffer the most. When, for a change, we look at the facts instead of some of the fiction that we have been hearing, we find, for instance, that the rate per head of the population in Blackpool, on the latest available figures, is £13 10s.—almost exactly the same as it is in West Ham. I daresay that all these people in Blackpool are desperately poor, but they do not look like it when we go there. I should have thought that they were better able to carry £13 10s. per head in rates than were the inhabitants of West Ham—against whom I have nothing, but they look to me, on the whole, a little worse off——

Sir R. Robinson: No doubt when the hon. and learned Gentleman goes to Blackpool he goes to his party conference and meets his colleagues, not my constituents.

Mr. Mitchison: But I go round Blackpool and I notice that they spend a great deal of money on the lights. I do not know where they get it from, but I am told that they do it because it pays them. I do not suppose that poor West Ham could do it if it tried, or that its buildings are so salubrious, or its tower so sightly as to attract the number of visitors who go to the seaside, and who, after all, at the end of the day, increase the wealth of Blackpool, Brighton and the other places.
It is really rather nonsense. I will tell hon. Members opposite where to look

for a really high incidence of rates per head of population. They need not go further than the front door here. The amount per head is £13 10s. in Blackpool. What is it in the City of Westminster? It is £128 12s. Have hon. Members thought of that? It is, of course, the Metropolitan Boroughs that carry the high incidence of rates per head, and it is a wholly misleading guide as to where relief is needed and has precious little to do with it. On the whole, Holborn is not very well off, but there the figure is £96 4s. per head of the population.
I hope that next time hon. Members opposite come here with the remarkable proposition that they are very very poor at Blackpool and Brighton and Bournemouth and that those wealthy places like Barnsley and West Ham should rush to their aid, and pay more rates in order that they should pay less they will, first, find something better to say than they have said this time, and, secondly, when they have made out this very original case, they will, at least, have the courage to vote for it.

Sir T. Low: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has treated this Amendment and a previous Amendment rather too lightly, but, at least, he has amused himself if he has amused no one else. The fact is, I think, that he and many of his hon. Friends really consider that the present system of grants and rates leads to considerable injustice in a large number of places, and they really do feel that not only seaside resorts but other towns and places which have been mentioned are too well treated.

Mr. Mitchison: I have a very great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he would like me just to answer that. The thing which I regard as the worst in the Bill is that the relief by way of industrial rerating is not complete and is not given wholly to the local authorities. It is on that sort of question—not referring at the moment to the education point—where I believe the injustice is.

Sir T. Low: I am trying to compare the present position as we have it today, before the Bill comes into force, with the position as it will be. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite generally feel that the


present situation is unjust to a large number of places and is over-just or over-kind to the sort of town referred to by those who have supported the Amendment. The Opposition would deliberately bring things about so that Blackpool, Bournemouth, Bath, Exeter, Eastbourne and a number of other places——

Dame Irene Ward: Whitley Bay.

Sir T. Low: —have to pay higher rates. They would do that as a deliberate act of policy.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Who said so?

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman must distinguish between the people I was talking about, his hon. Friends who all spoke for seaside towns, and the people who would be affected by the Amendment. The two are rather different.

Sir T. Low: I think that I can make all those distinctions. That is generally the view of the party opposite. There is nothing to be ashamed of; if hon. Gentlemen opposite think that it is right, they should say so. But I did not gather that that was the view of the Government.

Mr. Mitchison: I did not say so.

Sir T. Low: I gathered that the Government's view was that they had made this new general grant system, that it was rather sad and a pity that a number of people appeared to suffer from it, and that, although this damage had been done accidentally as a result of the new general grant system, there was nothing which could be done to put it right, with the one exception of the transitional arrangements set out in Clause 15 of the Bill as now drafted. It was said by my right hon. Friend just now that to prolong the 100 per cent. compensation for more than one year would take money away from gaining authorities, that is, deprive them of the full gain to which they might be said to be entitled when there was no compensation.
The Committee has forgotten, I think, that, even when 100 per cent. compensation is given to the losing authorities—and this is the circumstance we are considering here—most of the other authorities gain very substantially. That can be seen by looking at the last column but one in this hypothetical White Paper.

Mr. Mitchison: That hypothetical White Paper.

Sir T. Low: Just to take the authorities which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, does the Committee realise that, even with 100 per cent. compensation being given to the losing authorities, Barrow-in-Fumes gains 11d., quite a considerable gain? West Ham gains 2s. 2d. Kettering gains 4d. South Shields gains 6d.

Mr. Ede: Much overdue.

Sir T. Low: Liverpool gains 10d., as, no doubt, my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will know. Birmingham gains 10d. Acton gains 3d. Rochester and Chatham gain 4d. and 5d. respectively. When we talk about taking money from gaining authorities, we should be quite clear what we are talking about. We are leaving those gaining authorities with very substantial gains. I am sorry to take up time on the point, but I feel that all hon. Members were not aware of the facts during the course of our discussion.
Last night, on an earlier Amendment, my right hon. Friend said that he thought that these transitional provisions were generous. That is what he called them. On what basis does he describe them as generous? Generous in what way? All they do is to compensate a number of other authorities for money of which they have been deprived as compared with their present position. I do not want to quarrel with the language of my right hon. Friend's speech, which I thought was otherwise unexceptionable, but I really must quarrel with the use of the word "generous" in that context.
We have had the benefit of a very valuable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who gives a great deal of study to these matters. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister take up the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made about the way in which he might make further use of the formulae in the Bill to meet some of the points which have been made by my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment and by others who have spoken on a number of occasions, but I did not gather from my right hon. Friend's reply that he saw any chance that, by making use of any of these formulae in that way,


he could have us from a substantial loss. If I am wrong about that, perhaps he will get up and tell me so.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend asks me to get up and say something. The position is that the Government do not feel themselves bound by the hypothetical arithmetic—and the particular figures used in the 1957 White Paper—which I made available to the Committee. All those we shall certainly review so that the first general grant Order may be as just as possible to all concerned. But I say to my right hon. Friend that the large figures which have been quoted in the Committee about boroughs losing £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 really have no basis in fact, because amounts of that kind could not possibly be arrived at until all the transitional arrangements had come to an end, and, by that time, we shall have had the 1961 revaluation. We may have had boundary changes. Nobody can possibly foresee how the figures at that stage will work out. That is why I have maintained that, from 1961 onwards, the Government should reserve the power to bring forward further transitional regulations.

Sir T. Low: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, which is, of course, in line with the spirit in which he has approached this difficult problem throughout. But—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get on."] The hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) may think it right to say "Get on"——

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Not I.

Sir T. Low: —but this is what we on this side regard as a very serious problem for our constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vote."] Perhaps it would be a good thing if, before we came to a decision on the Amendment, we decided what it was we were to come to a conclusion about. That is what I am trying to do, as quickly as I can, to bring the matter to a conclusion.
I still feel that my right hon. Friend cannot guarantee us against a substantial loss. Indeed, all that he has said seems to me to make more wise and appropriate the Amendment we are now discussing. It seems to me wise, and not stupid, if everything is so uncertain, to prolong the 100 per cent. stage of the transition

arrangements. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. It seeks to prolong the 100 per cent. part of the transition arrangements from one year to two years, or such greater number of years than two as the Minister may decide by regulation. Everything that the Minister has said has made me come to the conclusion that that would be a wise course for the Committee to take.
8.0 p.m.
I know the difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman has found himself. But perhaps he will allow me to point out the difficulties in which my hon. Friends and I have found ourselves. In Committee and since a number of suggestions have been put to my right hon. Friend, none of which he has been able to accept. There were the Amendments proposed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), the Amendments which were proposed yesterday, and today's Amendment. I think that my right hon. Friend has the spirit of this Amendment in mind. There is a further possibility that he himself would put forward even a small point to try to protect us and our constituents from this extra rate that he proposes to impose.
I do not know whether I am more angry or more sad, but I must say to the Committee that I hope my hon. Friends will press this Amendment and, if necessary, vote for it.

Question put, That "first year" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Charles. Is it in order for the Patronage Secretary, whilst the vote is taking place, to go into the Division Lobby, where Members have gone to cast their vote, and get them out again? I was by the "No" Division Lobby and, with some of my hon. Friends, saw the Patronage Secretary forcibly try to get hon. Members from the Government side out of the Division Lobby. Is it in order to use physical pressure in that manner?

The Chairman: As far as order is concerned, I can deal only with things I


can see. I cannot see into the Division Lobby, so I cannot answer the question.

The committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 13.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[8.3 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Aitken, W. T.
Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Green, A.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimond, J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Atkins, H. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Neave, Airey


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Harmar


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hay, John
Partridge, E.


Bidgood, J. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, W. J.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bingham, R. M.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Body, R. F.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hope, Lord John
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ramsden, J. E.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Rawlinson, Peter


Bryan, P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Redmayne, M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Howard, John (Test)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carr, Robert
Hurd, A. R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Russell, R. S.


Conant, Maj, Sir Roger
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooke, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Sharples, R. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Corfield, Capt. F. V,
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Speir, R. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Knox
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kaberry, D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Dance, J. C. G.
Kimball, M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
Kirk, P. M.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Lambton, Viscount
Summers, Sir Spencer


D[...]Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Thornton-Kems[...]ey, Sir Colin


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McAdden, S. J.
Wade, D. W.


Errington, Sir Eric
McKibbin, Alan
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Webbe, Sir H.


Fort, R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Freeth, Derzil
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maddan, Martin
Woollam, John Victor


Glover, D.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Marshall, Douglas
Mr. Brooman-White and


Godber, J. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Mr. Gibson-Watt.



Mawby, R. L.





NOES


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mawby, R.L.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Sir Roland Robinson and


Hesketh, R. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Mr. Cooper-Key.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)



Macdonald, Sir Peter
Teeling, W.



Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 21.—(PROCEDURE FOR COM- MISSION'S REVIEWS.)

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 17, line 45, at the end to add:
(5) The following provisions shall have effect for informing the public of the holding of reviews and the preparation of draft proposals:—

(a) before entering on their review of any area the Commission shall give public notice, in such manner as appears to them sufficient for informing persons likely to be concerned, that they are proceeding to hold the review;
(b) on furnishing to local authorities copies of their draft proposals on any review, the Commission shall give public notice as aforesaid that the copies have been furnished, stating that a copy of the draft proposals is available for public inspection at the offices of each of the local authorities in the area to which the review relates during such time (being the time within which under subsection (3) of this section representations with respect to the draft proposals may be made) as may be specified in the notice, and it shall be the duty of each local authority to whom copies of the draft proposals have been furnished to keep a copy thereof available for public inspection at their offices during that time.

This Amendment seeks to do two things which, I think, will commend themselves to the Committee. During our proceedings in Committee upstairs, the fear was expressed that the Local Government Commission might, as it was inelegantly put, "turn up and ferret about" in the local public house. It was desired that before starting a review of any area the Commission should give adequate notice of its intention to do so. That is the reason for the first part of the Amendment.
The second part of the Amendment is designed to secure that when the Commission, having before the date of the conference consulted all the local authorities in a review area, sends its draft proposals to the local authorities, the fact that it has done so will be advertised so that the public will be able to inspect a copy of the draft proposals at the local council offices. The purpose of this is simply to ensure that when the local authorities and the other interested bodies are studying the Commission's draft proposals, the local people will also have the opportunity of looking at them and, if they so desire, of making intelligent comments at the same time. I believe that this Amendment meets the sentiments expressed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 23.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO GIVE EFFECT TO PROPOSALS.)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 18, line 34, to leave out from "subsection" to "and" in line 35 and to insert:
an objection is made by any local authority, parish council or police authority concerned
This is a minor Amendment. Under the Clause as it stands, the Commission's final proposals as submitted to the Minister and made public by him can be objected to by anyone, but only the objections of either a local authority or of a police authority would normally lead to an inquiry. It so happens that the definition of a local authority as it refers to this part of the Bill does not include a parish council. Therefore, theoretically, the objection of a parish council could be dealt with without a public inquiry. This Amendment seeks to put the position right.

Mr. Wheeldon: In Standing Committee, we discussed the reference to a police authority which is contained in the Amendment. It is rather late in the day now to suggest an alteration. Nevertheless, we have made our protest in Committee and I repeat it now. I see no reason why a police authority should be included as one of the bodies to which reference should be made in regard to these proposals. Public opinion generally is to be consulted and apart from that, the local authorities, in terms of either county councils, parish councils or whatever other bodies the local authorities might be, cover the complete field. There is no justification for including a police authority in the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: When we discussed this matter in Committee upstairs, I joined with the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) in asking that parish councils should be included. On behalf of the National Association of Parish Councils and those of us who are interested in the matter, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for bringing forward that part of the Amendment.
Otherwise, I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon). I cannot understand why that amazing anachronism, the Standing


Joint Committee, should be included among the people who are to be asked to express their views on this matter. In the reorganisations that we are making, we are not dealing with a criminal population, but with ordinary, honest, law-abiding citizens.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 37.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO PART II.)

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, in page 27, line 45, at the end to add:
(6) Any order under this Part of this Act whereby any power to run public service vehicles (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1930) would otherwise become exercisable as respects any road as respects which it would not be exercisable apart from the order shall contain provision whereby the power shall be exercisable as respects that road only with the consent of the traffic commissioners or traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the road is situated, and the order shall provide for applying section one hundred and two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which provides for the procedure on applications for the consent of traffic commissioners and for appeals from their decisions) to applications for such consent under the order.
I can explain the Amendment in a few short sentences. What it amounts to is that where the area of a local authority is extended, that extension in itself should not extend the running area of any public service transport undertaking. The question of the area of the running of the public service transport undertaking should be left, as I understand it always has been in the past by local Acts, to the decision of the Traffic Commissioners. What we are saying is that a requirement to this effect shall of necessity be included in any Order which is made under the Bill where it is appropriate to do so: that is, where there is an extension of a local authority boundary.

Mr. Mitchison: I feel some difficulty about this Amendment. Although it is a matter in which I do not claim any special knowledge, I understand that the Thesiger Committee recommended that Sections 101 and 102 of the 1930 Act should not be continued. We are not considering an Amendment to those Sections, but we are considering their extension to a new case.

I should like to know whether the Government have considered the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee in paragraph 314 and onwards of its Report. If so, are they sure it is necessary to apply this procedure in the case they have in mind? I am not convinced that it is necessary, and if the procedure has been regarded as unsatisfactory by the Thesiger Committee, then perhaps the Government would like not to press the Amendment at this stage and to have another look at the matter in another place.

Mr. Bevins: My information is that the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee represents a rather controversial issue. Therefore, in the Bill, as we hope to amend it, we are following well-established precedents. It is the case, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, that the Thesiger Committee recommended the abolition of the requirement in Section 101 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 for local authorities to obtain the Traffic Commissioners' consent before running public service vehicles outside their areas. They took the view that the consent procedure was unnecessary because local authorities still have to obtain road service licences before they can run bus services. The private operators set great store by the consent procedure, which they regard as an additional obstacle for local authorities to overcome.
As I say, that recommendation is regarded as a controversial one. The Amendment does not really prejudice the issue. All it does is to preserve the consent requirement in those cases where local authorities extend their boundaries as a result of Orders presented by my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has strong feelings on this point but we have tried to do the right thing on the basis of precedent, as I understand it.

Mr. Ede: How does this Amendment come to be on the Order Paper? I cannot recollect that the matter was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill upstairs. If that is so, who has made representations to the Minister that this addition should be made to the Bill at this stage? Was it overlooked by the Ministry when the Bill was being drafted?
We are now told that this is a controversial issue and, on the story told by the Parliamentary Secretary at the Box during the last few minutes, the Government


have come down on the wrong side of the controversy. This is a matter which the Parliamentary Secretary says is to restrict the local authority, and the restriction is welcomed by the private enterprise people who might be in competition with the local authority if this were not in the Bill.
I do not think we have had a sufficient explanation, and I hope that before we part with the Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us its origin.

Dr. King: Before we leave the Amendment, may I say that I have in times past paid a tribute to the Parliamentary draftsmen, but this drafting is a little unfortunate? We want the law to be clear but, at the same time, we want it if possible to be euphonious. Whatever can be said about the Amendment, nobody can say that while it is clear, it sounds pleasantly. I know that in the United States a long time was spent in trying to rephrase a 200-word clause and they came to the conclusion that it could not be altered, but I suggest that this Amendment could be changed with advantage. The offending passage reads:
Any order under this Part of this Act whereby any power to run public service vehicles (within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1930) would otherwise become exercisable as respects any road as respects which it would not be exercisable apart from the order shall contain provision whereby the power shall be exercisable as respects that road only with the consent of the traffic commissioners …
I suggest seriously to the Minister that "as respects" could be replaced by the simple word "for" in each of the three cases, without losing any of the meaning of this precious Amendment.

Mr. Bevins: I am the last person to criticise Parliamentary draftsmen and I do not feel myself competent to comment on what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen (Dr. King). However, I will ask my advisers to look at the Amendment again from the point of view of what he has said.
As regards the comment of the right hon. Gentleman, I will gladly elaborate the reason for this Amendment to the Committee, although I do not want to take up too much time. Shortly, what we are doing here is to secure that if an Order is made by my right hon. Friend

under this Measure which extends the area of a local authority, the question whether the local authority should be empowered to run public service vehicles in the extended area should be one for the Traffic Commissioners. As I understand it, that has always been the position under the Road Traffic Act.
The position formerly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that whenever a local authority area has been extended by a local Act, a provision has been put into that Act and the effect has been that the Traffic Commissioners' consent would be required to the local authority running public service vehicles in the additional area. The outside operators who might have been affected were able to secure this reasonable safeguard because they could petition Parliament and secure Amendments in Committee to the Private Bill concerned, if they so wished.
The Orders made by the Minister under the present Measure affecting changes in local authorities areas will not be subject to Amendments by Parliament. The Amendment simply meets the difficulty by providing that a requirement for the consent of the Traffic Commissioners must be obtained before the vehicles are run in an added area, and that the requirement shall be written into each Order as the various Orders are made by the Minister concerned.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think the view of my right hon. Friend was that as the Thesiger recommendation was a controversial one, he preferred to follow precedent in this Bill.

Mr. Ede: Will the Minister answer my question? How does the Amendment come to be on the Order Paper? Who made representations to the Ministry that it should be put down?

Mr. Bevins: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. The fact is that at the time the Bill was drafted the provision simply did not enter into the minds of our advisers. It has since been realised that the provision should go into the Bill, and that is why we are bringing it forward now.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: In a case of sheer inspiration suddenly arising in the Ministry one feels reluctant to interfere. Apparently this consideration was not


present in the minds of the hon. Member's advisers when the Bill was drafted, and it has now become advisable. We are somewhat bewildered as to how the process occurred, but we should hardly be justified in resisting the Amendment on that account. I will make only one comment. We hear a great deal about Tory freedom, and about the Government's idea of giving more liberty to local authorities, but those ideas seem to disappear when there is a conflict of interests between private transport undertakings and those of local authorities.

Mr. David Weitzman: Would not it be rather a good idea to insert an explanatory note, so that both laymen and lawyers might understand what the provision means?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 64.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Amendment made: In page 42, line 43, at end insert:
and not excluded by any provision of Part II of that Schedule".—[Mr. Bevins.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(LIABILITY TO CHARGE (RECOVERABLE AS A RATE) OF OWNER OF UNOCCUPIED HEREDITAMENT.)

(1) Where a rating authority is satisfied that the owner of any hereditament which has become unoccupied within their area is without reasonable cause allowing that hereditament to remain unoccupied, they may, after giving to such owner notice in writing of their intention to do so, levy upon him, in respect of the period commencing on such date as may be specified in the notice (not being earlier than three months from the date of the notice) and ending on the date on which the hereditament ceases to be unoccupied, a charge of an amount equal to such proportion (not exceeding twenty-five per cent.) as may be so specified of the rates which would have been payable for the said period in respect of the hereditament by an occupier thereof.
(2) Where the owner of any hereditament is aggrieved by the decision of a rating authority to levy any charge upon him in pursuance of the foregoing subsection he may, not later than one month from the date of the notice sent to him under that subsection by such authority, appeal to quarter sessions against the said decision and a court of quarter sessions shall have power to confirm, vary or annul the decision of the authority, and their decision shall be final.
(3) In any case where in pursuance of this section a charge is being levied on the owner

of any hereditament and such owner is of opinion that that hereditament is no longer being allowed to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause, he may apply to quarter sessions to annul the decision of the rating authority in pursuance of which the charge is being levied as aforesaid and, if a court of quarter sessions is satisfied that the hereditament is no longer being allowed to remain unoccupied without reasonable cause, the court shall annul such decision as from the end of the year then current; and the decision of a court of quarter sessions on any application made in pursuance of this subsection shall be final.
(4) A charge under this section shall be leviable and recoverable as if it were a rate and shall be treated as money paid as rates.
(5) This section shall not apply in the case of a hereditament—

(a) in relation to which a building preservation order under section twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is in force, or which is included in any list compiled or approved by the Minister under section thirty of that Act; or
(b) which is the subject of a preservation order under the Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 to 1953, or which is included in any list published by the Minister of Works under the said Acts.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause represents a belated attempt to get some measure of equality between England and Scotland. The position, so far as Parliamentary history goes, is that after the usual heated proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Bill came to the House on recommittal on 27th June, 1956, when the Secretary of State for Scotland moved what now appears in that Statute as Section 17, and there was considerable discussion about it. It differs from the Clause now proposed in only two respects.
The first is the obvious one that, being a Scottish Clause, questions of appeal and so on went to the sheriff, whereas in England—where our sheriffs do not perform the same functions—appeals on matters of this sort usually go to quarter sessions. The second is concerned with the question of timing, which I shall mention in a moment. Subject to those two points, the wording is copied from that Section of the Scottish Act.
I am going to call a hereditament a house, for a change. No doubt the word covers other kinds of property, but


"house" is a short word. If the owner of a house has left it unoccupied and the local authority considers that he has done so without reasonable cause, it may give him notice and then levy on him a charge by way of a rate from a date specified in the notice, and after an interval of at least three months. The Section in the Scottish Act provides for a longer period of six months, and the change in the time has been made since the Committee stage, when we discussed a similar Clause, because the view was expressed by my hon. Friends that, in all the circumstances, while six months might be suitable for Scotland it was too long for English purposes. There is a corresponding alteration in the date of an appeal, which is a quite minor matter, and the charge is not to be the whole rate which would have been leviable but only one-quarter.
Subsection (2) allows an appeal not later than one month from the date of the notice, and the Scottish version is six weeks. It is an appeal to quarter sessions, which can—
confirm, vary or annul the decision".
It is a complete appeal, and again, when the charge by way of rates is actually being levied and the owner considers that it is no longer the case that the house is unoccupied without reasonable cause, there is another right of appeal to quarter sessions. Again, if the course is satisfied that it is no longer unoccupied without reasonable cause, it can—
confirm, vary or annul the decision".
There is an exception in the case of houses about which building preservation orders have been made, or preservation orders under the Ancient Monuments Act, and in similar exceptional cases.
The object of the new Clause is to ensure that the owners of these unoccupied houses do not entirely escape rate liability, and, as a matter of justice, I would suggest that that is right in itself but that it is also right that they should not pay the full rates. No doubt, as long as the house is unoccupied, the owners do not get the full benefit of the local authority's services, but that, as we have said in this Committee during the discussion on an earlier Clause, is not really the right criterion. The services have to go on, and they will get the benefit of them when the house is occupied

again, and some, at any rate, of these services will be useful, even in relation to an unoccupied house, such as, for instance, the police and fire services and so on.
There is a broader point. If there is any doubt about the matter, I suggest that we should lean towards discouraging owners from leaving houses unoccupied without any reasonable cause. The owner can always say that he has a reasonable cause and that he is not satisfied with the authority's view of the matter. One can think of many cases where, even for three months, houses may be left empty with reasonable cause, but it is much easier to think of cases where houses are left empty without any reasonable cause.
The kind of case I have in mind is not in relation to houses so much as to flats. Everybody knows that the housing situation in London at the moment is very difficult indeed and that as a result of the changes introduced by the Rent Act—and I am not putting this as controversially as it could be put—there are distinct inducements for owners of large blocks of flats to turn out a number of tenants at the time and in the way in which they are now allowed to do and to let the flats for a more profitable purpose, perhaps furnished, perhaps on seasonal lets and so on.
In the course of the debate the other day, I mentioned the case in which a large block of flats was in fact being used in this way and people were being turned out. Some of them were incapable of being turned out, and so they had to stay there. It was intended in that case to use the flats for American visitors. I make no particular complaint about that. It might be for any other profitable letting purpose, but one of the features of that case, though I did not mention it at the time, was that a considerable number of these flats had been deliberately left unoccupied, because, at the beginning of the process, tenant A and tenant B were turned out and their flats remained empty until finally tenant Z came to be turned out.
It may be said that that is reasonable. Personally I do not regard it as reasonable, in view of the London housing situation at present, and certainly I would regard it as not in any sense right or reasonable if the owner sticks out for so


much money by way of rent that he never succeeds in getting the flats reoccupied. That is what is happening, not only in relation to rent, but in relation to sales, too.
It is unreasonable, and I believe it will seem to the Committee and to the Parliamentary Secretary wholly unreasonable, that people should leave houses unoccupied for long periods when there is a housing shortage, simply because they want to sell and the price they are asking is so much above what anybody is prepared to pay that they do not succeed in selling. If they are taking a gamble of that sort, it is an unreasonable gamble at the expense of the general housing situation. It is a gamble at the expense of many people in London who can find nowhere to live.
This is not intended to be a punitive Clause. It aims at getting a reasonable contribution to local authority expenses in the case of unoccupied houses. It is one on which the Committee should look kindly, because it will discourage landlords from doing the kind of thing I have described. Landlords do it, not for any vain reason. The reason is simple; they are trying to get too much money. In big towns it is hard enough that there are between 1 million and 2 million people for whom we can find no housing in those towns. We cannot neglect the opportunity of giving a small push in the right direction to owners of unoccupied houses where the vacancy is prolonged without reasonable cause, even though that is not the only purpose of the proposed new Clause.
As a matter of abstract justice, it is fair that owners of unoccupied houses should make a contribution to the rates. What is fair in Scotland is probably fair in England. If we are told that there is a difference between the two countries and that what is fair in Scotland is unfair in England I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up the distinction in morals, circumstances, colour, complexion, religion or nationality, which justifies that distinction. He may say that that is not the real distinction, which was that the Secretary of State for Scotland was such a forcible character at the time—he had been the Tory Chief Whip for quite a period—that he succeeded in getting through the higher ranges of this Govern-

ment something which his right hon. Friend the English Minister could not possibly have managed to get through, even if he had believed in it. The Parliamentary Secretary will not say it quite in that form; however, it will come out.
The second reason is that the social effect and the social justice of the Clause are clearly so good that I do not think the hon. Gentleman will object to it for one moment. I hope that the Tory Party is not unduly wedded to landlords' interests. I have a crack at them occasionally, and some of my hon. Friends have many more cracks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that if he says that it is wholly reasonable that owners should leave houses and flats unoccupied for long periods in an overcrowded metropolis he may simply be inviting a degree of savagery in those attacks which so far has not appeared. I would not suggest that my hon. Friends will throw their boots at him, but that would be the sort of way to provoke it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Wheeldon: I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. In Birmingham we are concerned with the problem of empty properties. It is not an easy problem to overcome, but I think the Government might at least agree to do something along the lines suggested in the new Clause.
There are one or two points which might be stressed. There is the question of the services rendered by the local authority to the owners. Whether the property is occupied or unoccupied, services such as fire, water, health and cleansing still operate in respect of them, and it seems just that the landlord should make a contribution towards their cost. The amount suggested in the Clause is a modest one. Indeed, the Clause is in its entirety modest.
In Birmingham we have about 700 houses which have remained unoccupied for six months or more. Besides the loss in rateable value, there is the loss in respect of housing to persons on the council's waiting list. Many people have been on the list for a number of years and are becoming frustrated. Citizens come to me asking why certain houses should remain unoccupied and whether I can do something about it. They see


houses standing empty for three, six or even twelve months. If we can do something to bring the empty houses into occupation we shall be rendering a useful service to many people on local authority waiting lists.
The Clause is reasonable in all respects. It says that the local authority must show reasonable cause before taking action. After it has decided to act, it must give three months' notice to the owner. Finally, the owner has a right of appeal to the court. These proposals are reasonable and ought to be accepted by the Committee. We ought to take every possible step here and elsewhere to reduce the number of empty houses.
What has been done in Scotland is a good precedent. I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary may reply that in Scotland the rating law, like other laws, is different from that in England. Nevertheless, in this respect we should be wise to follow Scotland's lead. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the proposal was brought forward by a Scottish Minister, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary might follow that lead and thus give very useful help to many people on local authority housing lists.

Mr. Bevins: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Wheeldon) that it is undesirable, especially at the present time, that there should be a considerable number of houses or flats left vacant for considerable periods. I do not think there is any dispute on that. Where I am not convinced personally, nor is my right hon. Friend, is that the proposal put forward by the hon. and learned Member would achieve anything worth while. That is my difficulty. Perhaps in a moment or two I might explain in a little detail why I take that view.
May I first, as quickly as I can, get rid of the argument of the Scots precedent. We had a discussion on this aspect of the matter in Standing Committee and I resist the temptation to go over the ground again. Perhaps it will suffice if I say that in England and Wales we have never had the tradition of owners' rates. The tradition has always been quite different and owners as such have

never been rated. Although this provision was imported into the Scottish Measure, it has not been utilised by any local authority in Scotland. That may well be an indication of the value or lack of value of the provision.
Nobody can dispute the hon. Member's argument that from a moral point of view there may be a case for asking the owners of unoccupied property to make some contribution to local rates. It is true that the owners of unoccupied property derive some benefits from the existence of the police force, the fire service and, perhaps, the local water undertaking, for example, but, as I ventured to remark in an earlier debate this afternoon, it would be unfortunate if we were to start, in this or any other matter, trying to relate liability for rates to services enjoyed by individual ratepayers. I will leave the point there, having conceded that morally I think the hon. Member is right.
What worries me is the operation of this provision from a practical point of view. I invite the Committee to consider it from two points of view. I have here the publication of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, which gives the amounts of irrecoverable rates arising from empty properties in England and Wales. What do these statistics show? They show that by and large the amounts of rates irrecoverable in 1956–57 because properties which are empty are not rateable varied a good deal from area to area. Looking at these figures, which have not been totalled, I see that the average works out at about 1½ per cent. In the hon. and learned Member's constituency it is 1·06 per cent. and in Birmingham it is 1·33 per cent. It is a mistake to assume, however, that this new Clause would enable the rating authority in Birmingham, for instance, to recover the whole of the 1·33 per cent.

Mr. Mitchison: Has the hon. Member no more recent figures? The figures he has given are before the Rent Act, which has caused a great disturbance in London and other large towns. I am not putting that in a contentious way, but I think the hon. Member will recognise it as a fact. He must approach this in relation to the present housing situation.

Mr. Bevins: It may well be that in certain parts of the country the number is higher than it was in 1956·57, but if


the hon. and learned Member will be good enough to follow me, as I know he will, he will see that even if the figures today are substantially higher than in 1956·57 it would still not be a worthwhile operation from the point of view of the local authorities. I was taking the case of Birmingham——

Mr. Sparks: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the financial implications of the percentages he has quoted? I assume that they are related to hereditaments and not to the financial implications. Can he convert them into financial terms?

Mr. Bevins: I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I said was that the amount of the rates which were irrecoverable in this particular year, because the properties were not rateable because they were empty, varied from area to area, and in the city of Birmingham the percentage of irrecoverable rates through voids was 1·33 per cent. I think that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wheeldon: I do not think it is. Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that 1·33 is a 3d. rate? In millions of pounds of rates is not it worth while?

Mr. Bevins: Of course it is worth while. If it were a 3d. or 6d. rate in the £ I think that I should be prepared to be on the side of the advocates of this new Clause, but what I am trying to explain to the Committee is that it is not a matter of a 6d. rate or a 3d. rate. It is something which is really quite negligible.
I think the mistake which is being made by some of the supporters of the new Clause is that, although in this case I have cited the percentage of the irrecoverable rates through vacant properties is 1·33 per cent., this new Clause would not enable the rating authority to recover anything like that amount—I think the hon. Gentleman will see that—because, of course, some of the properties are vacant for relatively short periods. Quite a number, for example, will be vacant for periods of less than three months. In that case this new Clause would have no effect whatever on the rates received by the rating authority. There will be other houses vacant for longer periods than three months which would not be rateable for at least the first three months. Many of them would not be rateable at

all because there was reasonable cause for their being vacant; that is to say, if the owner of the house has a house which is vacant for three months and then lets it or sells it, this new Clause would not bite at all.
If in the second class of case it is vacant for three months, when the local authority goes to the owner and makes a demand for rates, the owner may say it was vacant with reasonable cause Again the local authority would lose its entitlement to rates, even though the house remained empty. What is more, for those that were rated, assuming they were empty because of some unreasonable cause, even in the residue of cases, a rate of only 25 per cent. of the total rate would be applied by virtue of this Clause.
I therefore suggest to the Committee that the cumulative effect of these factors, which, I agree, are reasonable within the context of empty property, would be that whereas the treasurers' booklet shows that the irrecoverable rates a couple of years ago were perhaps 1½ per cent. for the country as a whole, that amount would probably be whittled down, because of the provisions of this new Clause, to about one-third or one-quarter of that amount. If that were to happen, and I seriously suggest to the Committee that would be the end result of this operation, then I do not think the gain would be worth the candle to the local authorities, and I have a shrewd suspicion that the reason why the comparable provisions are not being operated in Scotland is that the local authorities realise the operation is not worth while.

Mr. Wheeldon: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise what an excellent case he has made for a strengthening of the new Clause? He has suggested in effect what I suggested in the first place in the Standing Committee—that we were far too modest in proposing an Amendment or a new Clause like this. What the hon. Gentleman is arguing now is that the three months' period is too long for the owners, and secondly that we should be much more vigorous. Would he, therefore, be prepared to support in another place a suitable Amendment?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Member is quite wrong. When he says what he has said he emphasises the dilemma of those supporting this new Clause. There is no


dispute between us on the moral issue. The dispute arises as to whether it is worth while at all to embark on this operation. When I say I do not think it is, the hon. Member says that I am implying that the new Clause should go further, reduce the three months' time limit, and perhaps impose a rate imposition of 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. I think that would be most unreasonable.
To illustrate the case from another angle, I will look at it from the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. He argued very reasonably that one effect of a Clause of this sort would be to induce owners of empty flats and houses, especially in a time of relative scarcity, to let or sell and thereby to help towards a solution of our housing difficulties. When we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee, I gave an example of the sort of thing which might happen. I hope I may be forgiven for giving a similar sort of case within the structure of the new Clause.
Take the commonplace case of an individual who owns a house with, say, a rateable value of £50. He wants to sell it and thinks it is worth £3,000. He gets offers of £2,600 or £2,700 and decides that, as the house is worth £3,000, he will wait. He waits for a period of three months. During that period he is under no rating liability now and would not be under the new Clause. Suppose that at the end of the three months he has still not sold his house or flat. He might allow the matter to drag out for a further six months, which is a good average case in favour of the new Clause. If the local authority could establish that he was being unreasonable by neither selling nor letting, he would be liable for a payment of rates for the six months which followed the first three months' period of exemption from rates.
Assuming that the rate poundage was 20s. in the £ on a house with an average rateable value of £50, his liability for rates for a period of nine months' unoccupancy, a payment for six months as provided for by the Clause, would amount to the princely sum of £8 5s. I just do not believe that any individual who is holding out for a higher rent is likely to be deterred by a rating position or penalty of that sort. Much as I would hope that it might be possible to contrive some

method of achieving the aim the hon. and learned Member has in mind, I just do not see how this Clause would achieve it. I do not see how it is possible to achieve it without being grossly unfair to the owners of unoccupied property.

Mr. Mitchison: It is very difficult to get it right with this Government. We produced an Amendment a little time ago which they said was not stiff enough. It was an educational question about providing a minimum in relation to the weighted population. So we stiffened it by ten times on the figures they gave us. Then they would not take that. This time we had that sort of criticism in the Committee and we were a hit more moderate. We reduced the six months to three months but we are still told that does not really make it worthwhile.
If that is the only difficulty, let us reduce it a bit further, because at the end of the day the owner has, in the opinion of the local authority, to be acting unreasonably, and if he differs from that opinion he has a right of appeal when the local authority makes its original decision, and a continuing right of appeal afterwards. Therefore, he is well safeguarded. If the hon. Gentleman said, "Having regard to that safeguard about unreasonableness, I say that three months is unnecessarily long, let us make it one month", I would not mind that.
I go one further step with the hon. Gentleman. He says to me "It will not have a very large effect." Of course, the more we stiffen it up the more effect it will have. I never put it forward as having a large effect, but I suggest that it is wrong, when considering contributions to the solution of housing difficulties, to dismiss any contribution because it is only a little one. It is well worth making, and I am afraid that I do not take that argument too seriously.
The next question is the total amount. I hope that I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly that the average "voids", as I think they are called, over the whole country is about 1 per cent. of the rateable value——

Mr. Bevins: It is 1½ per cent.

Mr. Mitchison: This is for 1956–57, when the rateable value of all hereditaments amounted to £572 million and a bit. Surely, 1½ per cent. of that is worth


having. If the hon. Gentleman made me a present of it, I would not mind at all——

Mr. Bevins: That is precisely the point I was making. Of course, 1½ per cent. of that global total is well worth having, but the serious question is: can we contrive any system that is fair to the occupiers of property and will get us even a very small fraction of that amount?

Mr. Mitchison: This is quite fair to the occupiers of property. I did not understand that to be denied. In fact, the hon. Gentleman was saying that I was being much too fair to them, giving them too long, and so on; that they had too many rights of appeal. This is all a matter of judgment, and I think that we can trust the Government, if stiffening up the Clause against property owners, not to stiffen it up too far. I would not have thought that there was any real difficulty about this at all. I did what I thought was reasonable, but perhaps I was guided a little too much by Scottish example. I am told that the Scots have always rated empty property, and I am told that the new Clause introduced by the Government has not been used much only because it has been in operation for just a short time, but that it was and is desired by all the Scottish local authorities—and the Government introduced it.
I know that Glasgow is different, but, apart from Glasgow, the housing difficulties in the really big towns in England beat anything in either country, and surely the contribution to their financial difficulties and those of other local authorities should not lightly be neglected. I agree that it is a question of how much in time and, if the hon. Gentleman likes, in percentage. I should be perfectly happy were the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend to say: "We do not think you have gone far enough. We want to make it stiffer—say 50 per cent."
There has, however, been no denial at all that these houses, taken as buildings, benefit from local authority services. There has been no suggestion that it is not perfectly just that some payment should be made for those services; no suggestion that the new Clause is unfair to occupiers. I say that it is wholly and completely wrong that the Government should reject it on the very flimsy ground, with respect to him, that the hon. Gentle-

man put forward just now, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support the new Clause in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Sparks: I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment on the basis of the case which he made in opposing it. First, he said that, if the Amendment were carried, the amounts to be recovered by local authorities would be so small that they really would not bother about doing it. Very well; let it be put in the Bill in permissive form. They may wish to use it, but, if they do not, why withhold the opportunity from them? Next, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there would not be much in it for local authorities, perhaps about 1d. rate, he said. A 1d. rate in my constituency means over £6,000. We should be very pleased to receive it, if it were made possible under the Bill.
While it is true that, in some areas, the amount of property void through non-habitation may be very small, in the larger, built-up areas, especially as a result of the working of the Rent Act, there is, remarkable though it may seem, quite a fair number of houses which are empty for quite a long time. The Parliamentary Secretary admits the morality of our case; on moral grounds, he says, it is justified. He admits himself that, although a house may be unoccupied, it does receive the benefit of all the appropriate services for which other ratepayers must pay. I can see no reason whatever why the owner, if he wants to keep his house empty in order to sell it at the figure he wants, should not make a contribution towards the services which he is enjoying although making no contribution towards them.
It is not a sufficient argument to say that there is not very much in it and the local authorities would not bother about collecting it. That is not an argument for rejecting the Amendment. Let the local authorities have power to levy a rate on unoccupied dwellings. I ask for that strictly on the ground that the owner of a house is enjoying the benefit of services, towards which he himself is not contributing, which assist him to obtain what he regards as a satisfactory price for the house when he sells it. If the theory is that the longer he can keep the house empty—for nine or twelve months rather than six—the better off he will be, that is all the more reason for saying that


he should make a contribution out of the increased price which he will receive for the house by keeping it for so long and enjoying the benefit of the local authority services for that time.
The case has already been made for the Amendment and the Minister's objection is very flimsy indeed. Unless he has a stronger case than he has so far put forward, he ought to accept it without more ado.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I should like to apologise, first, to the Minister for not having been present when he replied to the debate, but I have gathered from the remarks passed by my hon. Friends what the gist of his reply was.
I am deeply concerned about this matter. The Minister has made great play of the fact that the provisions he is now introducing for release from rent control mean that there will be an opportunity for people to obtain housing accommodation. If he is to be consistent at all, he must obviously do all he can to see to it that houses which are empty shall be available for those evicted in consequence of his actions through the provisions of the Rent Act. This is an old problem. The original suggestion of the single tax, which has come up time after time in the course of my experience in the House, contained within in it the idea that a house should not be kept empty when there was some opportunity for it to be used.
Nobody in his senses would suggest that there is sufficient accommodation available to enable houses to be kept empty. A landlord does not keep his house empty because there is no one to fill it. On the contrary, plenty of people would take the house if it were available for letting. For what purpose does the landlord keep it empty? The answer is, to try to get the highest price that he can for it with vacant possession. That is precisely what the Minister says he does not want. The Minister's argument is that everybody should use their houses to the best possible advantage of the people who require accommodation. Yet he does not take a simple step to compel people who have houses to let them because it would not pay them to keep them empty.
9.15 p.m.
The Minister ought to think once again if he opposes this proposed new Clause because he is taking an illogical action. It is no good saying that there is a small number of houses which are empty. We were told when the Rent Bill was under discussion that the reason why there were so many empty houses was because it did not pay the landlords to let them at the rentals prevailing before the passing of the 1957 Act and because of that houses were going to waste, falling into disrepair, and so on. The picture at that time was that there was a large number of empty houses.
I gather from what I have heard since I have been in the House this evening that we are now told that there is not a large number of these houses. If that is so, very few people will complain about this proposal, which is important for the purpose of getting those houses occupied. If there is a large number of empty houses, this proposal will obviously do a good turn by enabling people to occupy them.
I cannot understand the Minister refusing a suggestion of this sort, which would at least make possibly tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of houses available for occupation instead of having to turn people on to the streets, which will happen, in spite of the new attempt to try to remedy the mistake by the Bill that we are now discussing in Committee. Many thousands of people will still not have the opportunity of protection under that Bill. The question is: where are they to go? The councils cannot take them. They cannot buy the houses. There will be empty houses which it will be possible to occupy, but the Minister merely turns his head and says that it does not matter—I nearly said something which might not have been Parliamentary language—[HON. MEMBERS: "Say it."] All right; I am prepared to say it. It does not matter a damn to him or to anybody else. That will not do, because if the Minister is genuine in his desire to provide accommodation or to make accommodation available, he has no alternative but to change his mind about this Amendment.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 213.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[9.20 p.m


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Albu, A. H.
Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harman, W.
Paton, John


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pentland, N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hastings, S.
Popplewell, E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Beswick, Frank
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, P.
Probert, A. R.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pryde, D. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech(Wakefield)
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, T.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Cove, W. G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan, D. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Thornton, E.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Timmons, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Viant, S. P.


Diamond, John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, D. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mahon, Simon
Watkins, T. E.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Neath)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Finch, H. J.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C. W.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Orbach, M.



Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Aitken, W. T.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooke, Robert


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, A. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Body, R. F.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Armstrong, C. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Atkins, H. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, col. A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Barlow, Sir John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cunningham, Knox


Barter, John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Dance, J. C. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Burden, F. F. A.
Davidson, Viscountess


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Butcher, Sir Herbert
D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Carr, Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cary, Sir Robert
du Cann, E. D. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Channon, Sir Henry
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Bidgood, J. C.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Duncan, Sir James

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(GENERAL GRANTS.)

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 44, line 5, at the end to insert:
Subject to the provisions of Part II of this Schedule relevant expenditure for the purposes of this Act is expenditure falling within any of the following paragraphs.
This Amendment and all the other Amendments in my name to the First Schedule are linked with the Amendment to Clause 1, which the Committee has already agreed.

Mr. Michael Stewart: May I ask the Minister a question which, perhaps, I should have asked earlier? What is the point of this rearrangement of the First Schedule? I am not asking now about the alterations in this subject

matter, simply about the form. As far as I can see, if we want to find out what is relevant expenditure we can do it now by reading straight down the Bill. After this Amendment is made, to find it we shall have to read two pages of the Bill concurrently, and that would seem to be less tidy than the present arrangement.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: The object of the Amendment is to make it easier to ascertain what were the exclusions from relevant expenditure. We considered the question in the form in which the Bill left the Committee and came to the conclusion that in the light of one or two further changes which needed to be made it would be far clearer if we had a


separate Part II which set out in one coherent whole all the exclusions from relevant expenditure. I shall be perfectly willing to develop that point further when we consider the relevant Amendment, which is set out at some length, when we have Part II in front of us.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, leave out lines 7 to 30.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): I beg to move, in page 44, line 35, to leave out "section twenty-seven of".
The Amendment adds to the categories of relevant expenditure in the First Schedule the expenditure of local health authorities as local supervising authorities under the Midwives Act, 1951. I should explain that the expenditure of local health authorities under Section 27 of that Act, that is to say, expenditure on the provision and furnishing of residential accommodation for pupil midwives, is already included in paragraph 2 of the Schedule. The Amendment extends the provision to all expenditure under the 1951 Act. Section 23 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, makes local health authorities the local supervising authorities for purposes of the Midwives Act.
These functions are theoretically distinct from the functions of local health authorities under Section 23 (2) of the 1946 Act under which they are responsible for providing an adequate midwifery service by arranging with voluntary organisations or hospitals for the employment of midwives. In practice these functions overlap and cannot be separated one from another. Local authority associations have advised my right hon. Friend that these supervisory functions make such an important contribution to the efficiency of the National Health Service that they should not be excluded from relevant expenditure attracting grant. My right hon. Friend accepts these views and henceforth local health authority expenditure on supervisory functions will rank as relevant expenditure. I hope that the Committee will feel that this is a helpful Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 37, leave out from "services" to end of line 39.

In line 42, leave out from "1948" to end of line 44.

In page 45, line 1, leave out from "Act" to end of line 5.

In line 17, leave out from "1947" to end of line 21.

In line 23, leave out from "Act" to "or" in line 24.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. Edward Evans: I beg to move, in page 46, line 29, to leave out from "1948" to the end of line 31.
The effect of the Amendment would be to delete from the Bill as it now stands the recognition as relevant expenditure of those services maintained by local authorities which operate under the welfare Sections of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and Section 29 in particular. This may appear a somewhat contradictory, if not reactionary, move, but it is designed to save the Government from themselves, and ultimately to allow them to take much more effective action to keep the welfare services at a good level.
Let us see what this Section of the 1948 Act aimed to do. It would be as well if I were to refresh the memory of the Committee as to its contents. The Section provides:
(1) A local authority shall have power to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons to whom this section applies, that is to say persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped"—
and I should like to emphasise those words "substantially and permanently"
by illness, injury, or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister.
The duties enjoined upon welfare authorities are, broadly speaking, entirely welfare services in this connection, and I quote—
(a) for informing persons to whom arrangements under that subsection relate of the services available for them thereunder;
I may add here that very many disabled persons are not aware of the already comprehensive services to which they are legally entitled under various Acts of Parliament.
(b) for giving such persons instruction in their own homes or elsewhere in methods of overcoming the effects of their disabilities;


This has been done for many years by voluntary societies, particularly the home teachers of the blind.
(c) for providing workshops … and hostels
and—
(d) for providing … suitable work … in their own homes or elsewhere;
Latterly, there has been developed a very fine domiciliary service by certain local authorities, particularly in regard to the blind.
(e) for helping such persons in disposing of the produce of their work;
One of the greatest difficulties of disabled persons, having been able to construct an article, either as recreative employment or on a commercial basis, is to be able to sell the goods.
(f) for providing such persons with recreational facilities in their own homes or elsewhere;
A very important duty that is laid upon the local authority is the necessity—
(g) for compiling and maintaining classified registers of the persons to whom arrangements under subsection (1) of this section relate.
When we had a debate in the House on 13th December on disabled persons, I stressed the need for more intense research into the extent of the problem of the disabled. This is one of the means by which a local authority, when it has taken on the responsibilities of this Section, can take measures to provide a classified register in the various categories. Section 30 of the Act deals with contracting out and assistance of voluntary societies by the local authorities making contributions to them. The Act also states that
the authority shall, to such extent as the Minister may direct, be under a duty to exercise their powers under this section.
When the Act was passed, we all hoped that these duties would be made mandatory upon local authorities for all the categories of disabled persons, but they have never been wholly so, except in the case of blind welfare work. There is a historical reason for that, because these duties were laid upon the local authorities by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and these duties attracted special grants. I should like the Committee to be seized of that fact, because there is a long history of these services to disabled people having direct grants from the Exchequer.
With regard to the other categories of disability, the deaf, the hard of hearing, and cripples, the spastics, the epileptics and the acute arthritics, who are all substantially and permanently handicapped, only permissive powers were given, subject to a satisfactory scheme being submitted to the Minister of Health and approved by him. It is very much to the credit of local authorities that the majority of them submitted schemes approved by the Minister, and operated them in some degree or other. Some do so excellently, particularly some of the major authorities like the London County Council, Liverpool, Sheffield and a great many others; some moderately well and others not so well.
We must remember that this is a very heavy burden to place upon any local authority, especially a small one. For it to bring in any scheme for widely different groups of disabled persons is to open up an entirely new field of welfare work for it. It has to start from zero, build up an administration, recruit and train a specialist staff, acquire premises and learn new techniques. All this it is required to do out of its own resources, for no grant at all, direct or indirect, has been payable so far.
It is no wonder that nearly 30 per cent. of the local authorities up to now have not yet submitted schemes and that very little is done for the disabled in those areas by the local authorities. Fortunately for these handicapped people, they derive benefits from the ministrations of the voluntary societies such as the Deaf Missions, the societies and clubs affiliated to the Central Council for the Care of Cripples and many other voluntary societies financed from charitable sources. I feel sure that the difficulty of these local authorities has not been lack of desire to embark upon these schemes nor illwill against the Act, but the major problem of setting aside sufficient money to operate effectively a satisfactory scheme.
For those authorities who feel that they cannot adventure into all the activities associated with so many categories, it is competent for them to contract out and use the services of voluntary organisations as their agents to whom, in the several groups of disability, they are empowered to make grants either on a per capita basis or on a lump-sum basis, subject of course to being satisfied that


the voluntary society is capable of giving the service to the local authorities' satisfaction.
This, I am always saying, is a challenge to voluntary societies. If they expect to act as agents for local authorities it is incumbent upon them to bring their work up to a standard that will ensure satisfaction to the local authority. These grants, paid by local authorities to voluntary societies, are paid on the basis of not attracting any help from the Exchequer. For a great many of these authorities this is a comparatively new venture in local government and it should be an expanding one. A great deal more can be done—I will refer in a moment to the Report of the Piercy Committee—to help these unfortunate people who are disabled permanently through no fault of their own to live more fully, to live happier lives and to integrate themselves more closely with the community. In too many cases they are isolated, lonely and frustrated.
The object of the Amendment is to prevent the Government from tying their own hands. If this part of the Schedule is passed as it stands, it will put the welfare services for the handicapped into the queue for their share of the block grant. The Amendment would give the Government an opportunity of examining the problem again without being tied rigidly to the Act in respect of special grants for these services.
9.45 p.m.
Anyone who has served on a local authority—I am one who has done so—knows the tremendous pressure exercised by long-standing, powerful statutory committees in respect of the allocation of the authority's financial resources. We know the desire of finance committees to keep down the rates. It is a commendable desire; no one quarrels with it as long as the services are maintained. Recently, however, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had an opportunity to express their anxiety about the education service. It has not been a one-sided protest; it has come from all parts of the House of Commons and, indeed, from all parts of the country.
Education committees are by their very nature a very powerful element in local authorities which have education powers. They are statutory committees which are generally manned by men and women of

great ability and experience. It is our object to ensure that welfare committees are established in the areas of local authorities which have not yet submitted schemes to the Minister, but I doubt whether a new or comparatively new welfare committee will be able to make the same impact on those responsible for the allocation of the block grant as any of the older, stronger committees will be able to do.
In its examination of the welfare services under local authorities, the Piercy Committee came to very strong and definite conclusions upon their operation by local authorities. It said in Chapter IV, in page 90:
Apart from the provision made for the blind, it is clear that in the field of local authority welfare services for the disabled only the fringes have been touched so far …
That is a very pregnant phrase. It bears out precisely what I was trying to say a little earlier; there is room for tremendous expansion.
… and there is no doubt that there is need for fuller and better provision and scope for considerable development.
The responsibilities of local authorities in the welfare field are:

(a) to meet the social and occupational needs of those disabled who do not come within the employment field, and
(b) simultaneously to cater as far as may be required for the social needs of the disabled who are in the employment field."

This is a very important observation:
The Committee believes that more would have been done by local authorities in the welfare field if it had not been the case that most of the services which they can provide attract no grant from central funds.
The Committee proceeds to make this recommendation:
It therefore recommends that local authorities should be grant aided by the Exchequer in their expenditure on services provided by them under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act. Any such grant should be available without distinction between the type of disabled person or of services concerned, but the rate of grant would need to be calculated having regard to the extent to which services have already been provided in some fields.
It has been objected that the Piercy Committee does not specifically advocate direct grant, but elsewhere in the Report blind welfare is held up as a pattern for welfare services. As one who has long been associated with such services, I can fully endorse the Committee's appraisement of them. But blind welfare itself


has for long, certainly since the Blind Persons Act, 1920, attracted direct grant, and I submit that the tremendous expansion of blind welfare services in this country is mainly due to that fact.
The service is a model for welfare services all over the world, and it is certainly one that we can emulate in respect of other categories. I am sure that what has been done is due to the knowledge that the Government would provide direct support. If the Bill is passed as it stands, it will make it impossible for the Government to do anything to have these services given the priority they deserve in local authority programmes. I cannot see how a newly created service—and these welfare services are new in most parts of the country—can stand the pressure of other committees, such as those dealing with housing and health, and obtain what the Piercy Committee regards as sufficient resources in order to develop this great work.
Reference was made in Committee to the Minister's Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons, which has been set up with additional scope to follow the former Advisory Committee of which I regard it as a very great honour indeed to have been Chairman. I hope that I am not betraying any confidence or secrets when I assure the Committee that I had the direct grant principle very much in mind when we forwarded our recommendations to the Minister about grants, urging him to press for grant aid for these welfare services.
I move the Amendment in no spirit of controversy and with entire good will. I hope that the Minister will accept it and will later take the necessary steps to give such help as will go far to make the welfare services for disabled persons as effective and as helpful as we wish them to be.

Dr. King: I intervene very briefly for a special reason. The debate gives the Committee an opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) for his life's work on behalf of the handicapped people of this country. He has devoted his life to the care of the halt, the lame, the maimed and the blind, and no hon. Member can speak with more knowledge and experience of the problems of handicapped persons. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will give exceedingly

great weight to the arguments which he presented in moving the Amendment.
It is a special example, and a very human example, of the general case which my hon. Friends have pressed for a long time that worthwhile services in local government may be in danger because of the block grant. This is particularly the case, as my hon. Friend pointed out, with a small service which is young and which has very little power when it competes with the claims of big and powerful committees in local government—a service which is non-existent in many cases for some handicapped people and a service which in the case of the blind is supported by direct grant.
I commend to the Minister the arguments and the fears which my hon. Friend has expressed, and I urge him to look very carefully into them.

Mr. George Thomas: I, too, am anxious to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). We have the privilege of belonging to the same profession, and I know the esteem with which the teachers of the country hold the work which my hon. Friend has done for the handicapped children in our schools. It is given to few people to see so many results of their labours as my hon. Friend has been able to see. He began his work in South Wales, where to this day he is held in great affection.
My hon. Friend has referred to a section of our community who in the nature of things are bound to be a minority. They are the least able to fend for themselves, and I believe that they have a special claim upon our consideration. The disabled young people are far more expensive to educate than are normal children. Inevitably, the classes have to be smaller. Longer special training is necessary for the teachers. Special types of buildings are necessary for spastic children, for the blind, for the deaf and the partially deaf.
The local authorities in Wales have been anxious to get together. They have pooled their resources. It was my great privilege along with my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) to serve on the Working Party set up by the late George Tomlinson to consider education in Wales. As a result of that Working Party there was established a joint education committee for the local


authorities in the Principality of Wales. As a direct result of that local authority's activities there is a school for the deaf at Llandrindod Wells in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), where outstanding work is done solely because the local authorities pooled their contributions. Clearly, there are authorities which will find it impossible out of their own resources to cater for their own handicapped children.

Mr. Edward Evans: Adults.

Mr. Thomas: I should have thought this would have been one of those Amendments the Minister would have felt able to accept. Whereas I have been referring to the young, the same arguments are applicable to the mature adults. It is more expensive to look after these disabled adults than it is any other section of our community. The voluntary societies have been doing an admirable job, particularly, to my knowledge, for spastics, but it is not fair of us to put local authorities in such a position that they have to leave work which is their rightful duty to these voluntary organisations.
I earnestly support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend for the removal of the welfare services of the local authorities from this block grant. Whatever arguments may be applied to the other services, I am quite sure that the Minister will not want to handicap himself in dealing properly with a service which has been expanded during the past decade more than at any other comparable period of our history. I fear that this Measure may bring to a halt the expansion which has taken place. I do not suppose the Minister wants that to be so, and that is why I hope he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. Thompson: As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) fairly said, the effect of this Amendment would be to remove expenditure on welfare services for the handicapped under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, from the types of expenditure taken into consideration as relevant expenditure when fixing the size of the general grant. Of course, the immediate effect of this Amendment would be not to improve the financial provision for those services, but the

opposite; but in saying this, I fully recognise that the hon. Member's object is a far wider one, and I shall try to deal with it on that basis.
I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Lowestoft, whose great services to the cause of the handicapped are acknowledged in all parts of the Committee, and whose Chairmanship of the Minister's Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons entitles him to speak with authority and experience on this matter, has only one real objective in moving his Amendment, and that is to secure the best possible financial provision for the development of the services to the handicapped. He feels that this would be better achieved by implementing the recommendation, which he quoted, in paragraph 124 of the Piercy Report, which advocated the introduction of a specific Exchequer grant—of a size admittedly unspecified—on services provided by local authorities under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act. I am sure that is what the hon. Member has in mind and what has inspired him to move this Amendment.
10.0 p.m.
When the Piercy Committee reported in September, 1956, naturally it had no foreknowledge of the intention of the Government, a year later, to introduce a general Exchequer gvant covering a large number of services, including the domiciliary health services. I should have thought that it was not appropriate, when specific grants for comparable social services are being absorbed into the general grant, to introduce a completely different formula, that is to say, a specific grant for welfare services for the handicapped alone. The Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons, of which the hon. Member is Chairman, while admittedly strongly in favour of a Government grant towards expansion of local authority welfare services to the handicapped, has not in fact expressed any opinion on the merits of a specific grant as distinct from inclusion of an element of assistance in a general grant.

Mr. Edward Evans: I want to make this quite clear. I was very careful when I made my remarks to say what I had in mind. I should not like to commit my Committee, but I think there are no dissentients.

Mr. Thompson: That is a very fair intervention, but I am bound to say that at its meeting on 1st May, 1957, when the Committee had under review the Piercy Report, it recommended that the Government should give early effect to the Piercy Committee's recommendation, either for a specific grant or, if a general grant was introduced, by recognising the needs of the welfare services as a specific factor in the composition of such a grant.
At its most recent meeting, on 12th March, 1958, after the Committee had been informed that the Government had accepted that there should be a measure of assistance through the general grant towards expenditure on developing welfare services for the handicapped, the Committee reaffirmed its recommendation of 1st May, 1957. I feel that the Amendment I moved in Committee, which this Amendment seeks to reverse, to bring these services for the handicapped into the type of expenditure taken into consideration as relevant expenditure when fixing the size of general grant, is in conformity with what the Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons recommended at its meeting on 1st May, 1957, and that we should not now seek to exclude those services as proposed by this Amendment.
I recognise fully that the hon. Member in moving this Amendment was sincerely motivated to try to steer this matter into the direction he thought would secure most benefit for the services, but for the reasons I have enunciated I must advise my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Edward Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the objection I raised as to the status of a newly-formed welfare committee and its prospects of getting any share of the block grant of an authority? Does he not agree that it would be extremely difficult for that committee to provide anything like an adequate service, having regard to the terrific pressure on the authority from other directions?

Mr. Thompson: I would not accept that. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a very human subject, and I do not think that committees, even if newly formed as he suggests, would be at e disadvantage as compared with their fellows in obtaining a fair share of the expenditure for this purpose.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am sure that we all realise the human aspect of the subject and would accept that the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to show respect to that aspect, but I am afraid that I must pin him down on one or two points. In the first place, I do not think it is denied that in 1956 the Piercy Committee recommended a specific grant for this purpose and that it was open to the Government from then onwards to have complied with that recommendation. At that time the Government were not tied to this block grant idea, but they did not comply with the Piercy Committee's recommendation.
They now take advantage of this block-grant Bill to avoid ever having to comply with it by tucking the whole idea away as part of the block grant. It is about that rather deplorable manoeuvre of using a block-grant device as a way of disguising the fact that the Government have not complied, and apparently have not intended to comply, with that quite clear recommendation that we on this side complain.
I took the Parliamentary Secretary to be arguing that this service will be helped now because it will be a factor affecting the size of the general grant, but perhaps he can tell us this. As I understand the matter, local authorities are at present spending money on this service, but the money they so spend does not attract grant. They have to find it. When the general grant is framed, will account be taken of the amounts of money they are now spending?
I see that the answer to that question is "yes." That being so, could the hon. Gentleman clear up my next point? He will see in Clause 2 that it states that the Minister, in fixing the amount of the general grant, has to take into consideration:
… the latest information available to him of the rate of relevant expenditure (excluding, except in so far as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury otherwise determines, any expenditure of a description in respect of which no grant has been paid for years before the year 1959–60) …
That means that unless the explicit consent of the Treasury is obtained, the Minister cannot do what the Parliamentary Secretary told me a moment ago he would do. It is true that, under later parts of the Clause, he can take into account possible future expenditure, but


he cannot, without the explicit and exceptional consent of the Treasury, take into account, in making a general grant order, the money now being spent, or spent in any year prior to 1959–60 on the development of these services.
In view of the wording of Clause 2, I do not think that that will be disputed. This is a service in respect of which no grant will have been paid before 1959–60. I am bound, therefore, to ask this question. When the Parliamentary Secretary told me a moment ago that the money now being spent in this service would be taken into account in determining the size of the general grant, did he say that knowing that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been asked about it and has indicated that he would give consent? Unless that has been done, the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary just now is worthless; he cannot fulfil it without the express consent of the Treasury. This is a measure of how seriously the Government take the matter. Did they consider the bearing of that part of Clause 2 on this? Have they approached the Treasury to see whether, in this case, the Treasury would give the consent which Clause 2 requires? If they have not, I must come to the conclusion that they have not taken it quite as seriously as the nature of the subject requires.
Let us suppose that they get over that hurdle and they are able to take into account not only probable future expenditure but the rate of present expenditure when framing the size of the general grant. We are bound to face the fact that, important though the subject is in human terms, it is mercifully true that the number of handicapped persons is a small proportion of the whole population. Quantitatively, it is bound to be a quite small sum of money in comparison with the great sum of money involved in the whole amount mentioned in a general grant order. It will be a small proportion of the expenditure which local authorities will have to meet out of the general grant. It will be almost impossible to say whether proper account of it has been taken in framing the general grant. It will be all too easy for any local authority not inclined to take the service sufficiently seriously simply to ignore it.
This is why we feel that it would not be unreasonable to revert to the original form of the Bill, keeping this out of the general grant. Let the Government do now what they might have done when the Report of the Piercey Committee first came out and make a specific grant such as the Piercey Committee recommended.
Possibly, the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that would be untidy and not appropriate at a time when we are thinking in terms of block grants. We had that said very often in Committee; it was the stock argument against anything to say that it would not fit in with the idea of the block grant. But we really cannot treat the block grant as a sort of idol before which anything, even the needs of handicapped persons, must be sacrificed merely for the sake of tidiness. There will be a string of exceptions in what will be, after the Amendments have been made, Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. The treating of this service as a special case is not administratively impossible. It is not even inconsistent with certain other exceptions that there are in the Bill, and it will secure what I believe we are all determined to secure, namely, that this service is not overlooked.
One could say, I think, that the great majority of local authorities will be glad to fulfil their duties in this respect. But it should be made quite clear that, if there is anyone anywhere who is inclined to forget his duty, the form of the grant should be such that he cannot get away with neglecting it and the matter remain unseen. The danger in making it part of a general grant is that a service, the importance of which ought to be rubbed in and underlined, can be easily ignored if it is tucked away and overshadowed by the great bulk of the block grant.
I do not think that the Government are really wedded to the Bill in its present form. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) is really asking them to go back again to the Bill as they had it in its original form. I feel that, after consideration, they will come to the conclusion that that would be the wiser course.

Question put, That "1948" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 154.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[9.20 p.m


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Albu, A. H.
Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harman, W.
Paton, John


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pentland, N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hastings, S.
Popplewell, E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Beswick, Frank
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holman, P.
Probert, A. R.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Pryde, D. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech(Wakefield)
Snow, J. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Coldrick, W.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sparks, J. A.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, T.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stonehouse, John


Cove, W. G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Logan, D. G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Thornton, E.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Timmons, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Viant, S. P.


Diamond, John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, D. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mahon, Simon
Watkins, T. E.


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Neath)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Finch, H. J.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C. W.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Orbach, M.



Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Aitken, W. T.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cooke, Robert


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, A. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Body, R. F.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Armstrong, C. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Atkins, H. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, col. A. E.


Balniel, Lord
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Barlow, Sir John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cunningham, Knox


Barter, John
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Dance, J. C. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Burden, F. F. A.
Davidson, Viscountess


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Butcher, Sir Herbert
D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Carr, Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cary, Sir Robert
du Cann, E. D. L.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Channon, Sir Henry
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Bidgood, J. C.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Duncan, Sir James




Duthie, W. S.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Elliott,R.W. (Newcastle upon Tyne,N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, I. J.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Joseph, Sir Keith
Powell, J. Enoch


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Joynson Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Finlay, Graeme
Kaberry, D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Keegan, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Fort, R.
Kimball, M.
Ramsden, J. E.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kirk, P. M.
Rawlinson, Peter


Freeth, Denzil
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Redmayne, M.


Gammans, Lady
Leather, E. H. C.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Glover, D.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Roper, Sir Harold


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Godber, J. B.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, R. C.


Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, Alan
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Speir, R. M.


Green, A.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Ma[...]ean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maddan, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F, W. (Horncastle)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hay, John
Mathew, R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mawby, R. L.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wakefreld, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hornby, R. P.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wall, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Neave, Airey
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Nicholls, Harmar
Webbe, Sir H.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Howard, John (Test)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Woollam, John Victor


Hurd, A. R.
Page, R. G.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)



Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Partridge, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Peel, W. J.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Mr. Bryan.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, A.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Aitken, W. T.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Arbuthnot, John
Gurden, Harold
Nairn, D. L. S.


Armstrong, C. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Atkins, H. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barter, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.>


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, R. G.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Partridge, E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Peel, W. J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bingham, R. M.
Hope, Lord John
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hornby, R. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Pitman, I. J.


Body, R. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, John (Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ramsden, J. E.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hurd, A. R.
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Redmayne, M.


Bryan, p.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Rippon, A. G. F.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roper, Sir Harold


Channon, Sir Henry
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Joseph, Sir Keith
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cooke, Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Sharples, R. C.


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Keegan, D.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kimball, M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, P. M.
Speir, R. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. A. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, E. H. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Dance, J. C. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj, E. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Linsteao, Sir H. N.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


du Cann, E. D. L.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McKibbin, Alan
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
MacLean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Freeth, Denzil
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gammans, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maddan, Martin
Wall, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Webbe, Sir H.


Glover, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mathew, R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Godber, J. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Woollam, John Victor


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, R. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.



Gower, H. R.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Graham, Sir Fergus
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Albu, A. H.
Boardman, H.
Coldrick, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)


Awbery, S. S.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowies, F. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Balfour, A.
Brockway, A. F.
Cove, W. G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cronin, J. D.


Benson, Sir George
Burton, Miss F. E.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Beswick, Frank
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cullen, Mrs. A.







Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, D.)
Randall, H. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Redhead, E. C.


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Diamond, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dye, S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Finch, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Forman, J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Sparks, J. A.


Frastr, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Steele, T.


Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Storehouse, John


Grenfeil, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stones, w. (Consett)


Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.
Thornton, E.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Timmons, J.


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Weitzman, D.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Orbach, M.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Padley, W. E.
West, D. G.


Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hunter, A. E.
Parker, J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, John
Winterbottom, Richard


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, N.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Popplewell, E.
Woof, R. E.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Prentice, R. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Probert, A. R.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

Mr. R. Thompson: I beg to move in page 46, line 29, after "1948" to insert:
or in the making of payments or contributions under section twenty-six of that Act to voluntary organisations".
This is mainly a drafting Amendment. Its object is to make absolutely clear that when we refer that expenditure under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, we include the expenditure incurred by local authorities in making arrangements with voluntary organisations for the provision of such accommodation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move in page 46 line 34, to leave out "12. The foregoing paragraphs do" and to insert:

Orders of the Day — PART II EXCLUSIONS FROM RELEVANT EXPENDITURE

1. Paragraph 1 of Pant I of this Schedule does not include expenditure incurred—

(a) in connection with the provision of milk for pupils in attendance at schools maintained by local education authorities or for full-time students under eighteen years in attendance at establishments for further education maintained or assisted by suoh authorities or in receipt of grant from the Minister of Education, or the provision of

milk in pursuance of arrangements made under section seventy-eight of the Education Act, 1944;
(b) in connection with the provision of main mid-day meals for day pupils in attendance at schools maintained by such authorities or the provision of such meals in pursuance of arrangements made under the said section seventy-eight or in pursuance of section eighty-one of that Act;
(c) in the removal of works constructed for the purposes of air-raid precautions or of temporary works constructed for defence purposes by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Admiralty or the Minister of Home Security in pursuance of Regulation fifty or fifty-one of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, or by agreement, or in the reinstatement of premises so far as it is rendered necessary by any such removal; or
(d) in pursuance of a scheme under section ten of the Employment and Training Act. 1948.

2. Paragraph 3 of Part I of this Schedule does not include expenditure incurred in the performance of functions imposed under section two of the Civil Defence Act. 1948.

3. Paragraph 4 of Part I of this Schedule does not include expenses incurred in the management of approved schools or in respect of children sent to approved schools or in respect of remand homes.

4.—(1) Sub-paragraph (1) (a) of paragraph 5 of Part I of this Schedule does not include


expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of land for the redevelopment as a whole of areas of extensive war damage, or for the relocation of population or industry, or the replacement of open space, in the course of such redevelopment.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) (d) of the said paragraph 5 does not include expenditure incurred in connection with the payment of compensation in respect of land acquired by virtue of section nineteen of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947.

(3) Sub-paragraphs (1) (d) and (e) of the said paragraph 5 do not include the payment of compensation in respect of land of the National Coal Board to which the Fifth Schedule to the said Act of 1947 applies by virtue of regulations under section ninety of that Act, or in connection with the taking of any action under sections twenty-four to twenty-six of that Act in respect of such land of the National Coal Board.

(4) The said sub-paragraphs (1) (d) and (e) do not include expenditure incurred in connection with the payment of compensation under section twenty-six of the said Act of 1947, or the taking of action under that section, in respect of land in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty (within the meaning of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949) or any such expenditure as, under subsection (7) of section ninety-seven of the said Act of 1949, is to be treated for the purposes of that section as expenditure under the said section twenty-six and do not include expenditure in connection with the payment of compensation under tree-preservation orders under section twenty-eight of the said Act of 1947 in respect of such land as aforesaid.

(5) The said paragraph 5 does not include expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of any building excepted by direction of the Minister as being a building of outstanding historical or architectural interest, or the carrying out of any work of restoration, repair, maintenance or adaptation on or in the case of such a building.

(6) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of the said paragraph 5 shall apply in relation to this paragraph as they apply in relation to that paragraph.

5. Part I of this Schedule does".

This is the Amendment in connection with which the Committee has already agreed to no fewer than nine paving Amendments. As I explained a few minutes ago, it seemed wiser to the Government, in the interests of clarity, to take out and put in a separate part of the First Schedule all the various exclusions from relevant expenditure. I have no doubt that those who will have to study this Bill when it becomes an Act will find it more convenient to find all the exceptions so gathered together and marshalled.

As I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained on the first of the paving Amendments, there is no substantive change to be made by this re-arrangement, except in two small respects. Those are that paragraph 4 (4) of this Amendment excludes from relevant expenditure, expenditure which attracts specific grant under Section 97 (b) and (c) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949. Also paragraph 4 (5) of this Amendment excludes expenditure on acquiring and maintaining buildings excepted by the Minister as being buildings of outstanding historical or architectural interest.

The reason for the exclusion in both cases is the limited geographical incidence of the expenditure, and also in the latter case, that the grants are available to others beside local authorities.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after paragraph 1 to insert:
2. Paragraph 2 of Part I of this Schedule does not include expenses incurred by local health authorities in carrying out their duties under the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938, in making contributions under subsection (2) of section fifty-one of the National Health Service Act. 1946, and (in relation to mental illness or mental defectiveness) in making or carrying out arrangements or making contributions under section twenty-eight of that Act.
The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude from the general grant the expenditure of local health authorities on their mental health services. The case I have to make—due to the time I will make it briefly—is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) in dealing with the welfare services of local authorities.
The powers of local health authorities to undertake mental health services derive to a limited extent from the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts, 1890 to 1930, and the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913 to 1938, but in the main they stem from the National Health Service Act. 1946, and in particular from Section 28 of that Act.
The powers given to them relate to the prevention of illness and the care and after-care of persons suffering from illness and from mental disorder. These powers are only permissive. Section 28 states that local health authorities may make arrangements in connection with the prevention, care or after-care of illness.
The extent to which local health authorities have in the past availed themselves of these powers has varied enormously. The best of them do the job adequately. Probably the London County Council does it as well as anybody. The worst of them hardly do the job at all. The differences in the degrees of enthusiasm shown by local authorities come from a variety of causes, and among these causes the actual cost is one of the most important.
At the moment local health authorities have to meet out of the rate 50 per cent. of the cost of these services. In so far as these services dealing with mental health come under the welfare services, as my hon. Friend said, more often than not the cost to the rates is 100 per cent. The chances of bringing up the standard of the worst authorities even to that of the average would be very slender indeed, unless the cost of these services were excluded from the general grant and were the subject of a direct Government grant. So, even were the position to remain as it is today, I think that the case for excluding the mental health services from this Schedule is overwhelming.
10.30 p.m.
There is another factor which was introduced by the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency, published in May of last year. The whole attitude of the Commission and the recommendations in the Report make an Amendment on these lines, in my view, still more vital. One of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission was that there should be a general shifting of emphasis in the treatment of the mentally sick and disordered from hospital treatment to community care, and that, generally speaking, the permissive powers which local authorities had had in the past should be made statutory duties.
Community care, obviously, should be the responsibility of the local health authorities, and I think that in that

respect the reaction of most people to the Report was one of approval. In any case, this recommendation was accepted in principle by the Home Secretary and debated in the House last June. The whole point about this recommendation is that, if it means anything at all, it means that there must be a very considerable expansion in the mental health services of the local health authorities. The Royal Commission recommends that many of the services provided for patients by the hospital authorities at the moment should be shifted over to the local authorities. For instance, the Commission considers the local authority the appropriate body to provide long-term and short-term residential care for those suffering from mental illness who do not need the kind of specialised medical treatment and nursing care that they would get in a mental hospital.
The Commission also recommended that the local authorities should provide training centres for defectives or severely sub-normal patients, as the new phraseology goes, both adults and children. There is the whole field of after-care of patients who have been discharged from hospital and who still need someone to keep an eye on them and their home circumstances, for the rehabilitation of patients discharged from mental hospitals and the whole sphere of the preventive mental health services which have been almost totally neglected.
All this can mean only one thing, the expenditure of a very considerably increased sum of money on mental health services by the local health authorities. I wish to quote one paragraph from the Report of the Royal Commission—paragraph 609, in page 210:
We have felt it right to assume that a fair share of our national resources will be allocated in future to the mental health services both by the central Government and by local authorities, and that it is recognised that in many areas these services have a considerable amount of leeway to make up compared with some other parts of the country's health and welfare services. It may be inevitable that financial considerations will limit the speed at which the necessary improvement of the mental health services can take place, but we trust that even in present conditions this will be given a high priority.
If the cost of these services is to be included in the block grant, there is no question of the speed at which the services will be improved; they will not be improved at all. Unless the Government


accept the proposals contained in the Amendment and exclude this field from the general grant, and accept the fact that an expansion of the kind desperately needed and long overdue can be made only by a direct grant from the central Government, I maintain that their welcoming and acceptance of the Royal Commission's recommendations are hollow at best and dishonest at worst, because this job cannot be done by the local authorities out of their own resources. This has been agreed by everybody who has commented upon the Royal Commission's Report.
At this moment we are at the beginning of a new deal for mental health, which has long been called the Cinderella of our social services, but this new deal cannot be implemented unless the Government are prepared to spend the money necessary to do the job—and it is no good expecting local authorities to do it out of their own resources. I hope that this plea on behalf of the mental health services will meet with a slightly more constructive and less disappointing reply than that given by the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.

Mr. R. Thompson: The effect of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) would be to exclude, from relevant expenditure taken into account in fixing the total of general grant, expenditure on services relating to mental health and mental deficiency. It was his first point that, having regard to the needs of this expanding service and the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it would be very difficult to finance it adequately unless we relied upon a specific grant, which is not in conformity with the general arrangements under the Bill.
The local authority mental health services provide for the care and after-care of the mentally disordered, and include home visits by mental welfare officers to give help and advice, and the provision of occupation and training. These services form an important part of the local health authority services as a whole, but—and this is important—they are not essentially different from the other services so provided. Indeed, they are sometimes indistinguishable. For example, we could have a case where a health visitor or home

nurse had to visit a mental defective as part of his care. For that reason it does not appear to me that there are any reasons which would justify the mental health services being separated from the other local health authority services in the manner which the Amendment would secure. I am sure that the hon. Member, who knows as much about these matters as most hon. Members, would agree with me that all present trends are in the direction of bringing the mental health services as much as possible into line with those for other kinds of patients.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Royal Commission's Report, which recently recommended a substantial extension of the local authority mental health services, particularly by the provision of training centres and hostels for persons who do not really need full hospital treatment but require a degree of supervision or training which they cannot receive at home.
My right hon. and learned Friend has been discussing with representatives of local authority associations this very financial aspect of the recommendations, and he has made it clear that the Government hope that, subject to the general economic and financial situation, the development of local authority mental health services can and should proceed at an accelerated rate. He has indicated that when the proposed general grant takes effect, expenditure on these services will be taken into consideration on the same basis as the other local authority services.
I want to deal particularly with the point that, in the view of the Royal Commission, there was a good case for some special financial help from the Exchequer to local authorities. That was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech. This related only to capital costs. The Commission did not recommend any special arrangements for maintenance expenditure. It had in mind an Exchequer grant higher than the present 50 per cent., but not higher than 75 per cent., on approved capital expenditure within a period of, say, five years. It realised that the introduction of a general grant might make the use of a specific grant inappropriate, although it hoped that some means could be found for providing special assistance.
At the bottom of page 243, the Report says:
If the present specific grants for specific services are to be replaced by a general grant, it may be thought inappropriate to provide financial help for the expansion of local authority mental health services by this particular method. We hope, however, that some means can be found of providing such special assistance.

Mr. Mitchison: Read the next sentence.

Mr. Thompson: Certainly, if it will help the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Report goes on to say:
As we mentioned in paragraph 558 of Chapter 8, it is most desirable that a start should be made as soon as possible in the expansion of residential and other community mental health services by the local authorities, and some financial incentive may be necessary for that purpose.
I was coming on to that part of my remarks which related to the question whether any additional assistance of this kind could be afforded now.
While the Government are unable in the present financial circumstances to do all that the Royal Commission may have had in mind, my right hon. and learned Friend has announced his intention in the immediate future of recommending an issue of loan sanctions for capital work, including the provision of hostels, at a higher level than in recent years. The loan charges will qualify at the present time for specific grants and will be taken into consideration in the general grant.
My right hon. and learned Friend has also indicated the Government's willingness to sell to local authorities for a purely nominal consideration—and in this connection "nominal" means nominal—comparatively small but modern hospital buildings which can be spared for this purpose.
I think I have shown that in the Government's view it should be possible for local authorities to proceed with the admitted requirements for expansion in this service within the context of a general grant, and also with the aid of the matters to which I referred a minute or two ago. In all these circumstances, I do not believe that the Committee should accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, because I do not think that the mental health services are so different in character from those of the health services as a whole as to require special

treatment of this kind. Therefore, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: This is a disgraceful reply. The Royal Commission has clearly shown that some special financial incentive to local authorities is necessary. It has made it perfectly clear that it is in favour of not only a continuation but an expansion of the local authority's part in this very important field. It has also made it perfectly clear that mental health services have this difference or preeminence among other health services, that they are generally recognised, by both experts and others, to be that part of the health services which stands in most need of special help and attention at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman, at the end of a speech which was more ingenious than convincing, finally brought out another of the white rabbits that the Government Ministerial conjurors produce from hats. What was the rabbit? It was, "We are really going to help the mental health services. The mentally defectives, those who are mentally will never suffer at our hands. We are going to sell the local authorities some old hospitals very cheap and allow them to borrow some money." That was what emerged at the end of the day.
As against that, the present subsidy is to be taken away and these people are to have their needs merged in those of a number of other services, no doubt very important ones, but services which are larger in their nature, and they will be left to compete at the hands of local authorities with education, the fire brigade, all the other health services, child care, Part III assistance and the rest. This is the way the Government propose to treat a service which they themselves recognise to have special needs and special importance at the moment. I can only say that that is an immolation of the mental health services on the Government's precious altar of the block grant, and we shall, of course, vote against it.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 182.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[10.49 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pearson, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, W.
Pentland, N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Harrison J. (Nottingham, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Benson, Sir George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Beswick, Frank
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Probert, A. R.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J. H.
Randall, H. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, F. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Short, E. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sparks, J. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, J. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stonehouse, John


Crossman, R, H. S.
Lawson, G. M.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, H. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Diamond, John
McGhee, H. G.
Thornton, E.


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsan[...])
Timmons, J.


Dye, S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Watkins, T. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mahon, Simon
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
West, D. G.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E)


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W.
Woof, R. E.


Gibson, C. W.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Padley, W. E.



Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.(Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grey. C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Simmons.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Aitken, W. T.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Aiport, C. J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Green, A.


Arbuthnot, John
Cunningham, Knox
Grimston, Hon. John (S. Albans)


Armstrong, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Atkins, H. E.
Davidson, Viscountess
Gurden, Harold


Baldwin, A. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Barter, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duthie, W. S.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bingham, R. M.
Elliott, R. W.(Ne'castleuponTyne,N.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Errington, Sir Eric
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Body, R. F.
Finlay, Graeme
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hope, Lord John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Hornby, R. P.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Freeth, Denzil
Horobin, Sir Ian


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gammans, Lady
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Butcher, Sir Herbert
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Carr, Robert
Glover, D.
Howard, John (Test)


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Channon, Sir Henry
Godber, J. B.
Hurd, A. R.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Goodhart, Philip
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Gough, C. F. H.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Cooper, A. E.
Godber, J. B.
Hurd, A. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gower, H. R.
Ire[...]onger, T. L.







Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Sharples, R. C.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Joseph, Sir Keith
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nabarro C. D. N.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kaberry, D.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Keegan, D.
Neave, Airey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kimball, M.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kirk, P. M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfieid)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian(Hendon, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Page, R. G.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Partridge, E.
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peel, W. J.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


McAdden, S. J.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


McKibbin, Alan
Pitman, I. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Powell, J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarly)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ramsden, J. E.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rawlinson, Peter
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maddan, Martin
Redmayne, M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Marshall, Douglas
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Mathew, R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)



Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Roper, Sir Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mawby, R. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Question again proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted.


To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]


Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)

10.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd April.
The purpose of this draft Order is to confer upon members of the European Commission of Human Rights, which as the House knows, is an organ of the Council of Europe, certain immunities in connection with their official duties. I know the House is very jealous in regard to conferring this type of immunity. Therefore, I should like to make clear that these immunities are very similar to those already afforded to representatives of member Governments to the Committee of Ministers under Article 7 of the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) Order, 1950, which has been amended and which is now in force.
There is nothing in the present draft Order which exempts the members of

the Commission from the ordinary processes of the law except in respect of matters which relate to the performance of their official functions or during the the period when they are exercising those functions. In according such immunities, we do not in any way exceed the immunities previously granted in respect of representatives to members of certain organs and committees of other major international organisations.
The House will, I think, wish to know why it is that we ask for this Order. It is, of course, because we have an obligation to confer these immunities under Article 59 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which lays down that the members of the Commission shall, during the discharge of their duties, be entitled to the privileges and immunities provided for in Article 40 of the Statute of the Council of Europe and in the Agreements made thereunder. This Convention was ratified by Her Majesty's Government on 8th March, 1951.
The privileges and immunities to be accorded to the European Commission of Human Rights were subsequently specified in the Second Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe,


which was signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and entered into force on 15th December, 1956. The point of the present draft Order is to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify this Second Protocol. For the information of the House, the number of persons who would now be involved is 14. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to the Order.

11.2 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: As the Minister has said, this House as a whole is always very careful to consider thoroughly the case for conferring immunities on members of various international bodies. I think, however, that it is the combined opinion of the House that now that international bodies play such a big part in the development of human affairs it is necessary that they should be vested with certain privileges necessary to enable them, without any inhibitions, to discharge the duties imposed upon them.
The Minister has explained that in this case we are dealing with the European Commission of Human Rights, and I think I am right in supposing that that is a Commission that has the duty to discharge a number of functions of a judicial character It therefore seems entirely appropriate that its members should be accorded the immunity which the Order proposes, and particularly the immunities mentioned in 12 (b), namely:
Immunity from legal process … in respect of words spoken …
or things done in the course of their sessions as a Commission. Speaking from this side, I think that wholly appropriate, and I will offer no objection whatever to the Order.
There are, however, one or two minor questions that I would like to ask the Minister, and for which I should be grateful for an answer. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the object of the Order is to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Second Protocol to the Agreement. That Agreement was entered into on 15th December, 1956. I am not sure to what the subsequent delay is attributable, but I am sure that there is a very good reason, and perhaps the Minister will be good enough to give the House a word of explanation about that.
My second question is this. The Commission of Human Rights has been

sitting, and, indeed, transacting a considerable amount of business. Has it been doing so without being invested with the privileges which this Order will now confer upon its members? Have the members, in fact, been subject to the risk of legal process in respect of words spoken in the course of the hearings of the Commission? I do not know whether that is the case. I would rather assume that there must have been something which would have protected them, but that this Order now is intended to give protection in a different and, perhaps, enlarged form.
Thirdly, so far as I understand this draft Order, it is one which amends two preceding Orders, so that there will be three Orders in force all together. I gather that the Government, at one time, had it in mind to enact a consolidating Order which should express in one document all the immunities conferred under the terms of the 1950 Act. Certainly, if they did do that, it would make for greater clarity, and, I should have thought, would conduce to the peace of mind of those who sit on the Commission. They would look in one document to see how far their protection extended, instead of having to refer to three. I think that it would be appropriate, in due course, for the Government to introduce a consolidating Order. Perhaps the Minister would say what the Government's intentions are on this point.
Those are the questions which occurred to me in considering the terms of the draft Order and the circumstances in which it is proposed to make it. Subject to there being satisfactory answers, as I am sure there will be, the Government need not anticipate any opposition from this side of the House, but on the contrary, they may expect approval.

Mr. Ian Harvey: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like, first, to express my obligation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for the way in which he has received the draft Order and his statement that it will receive the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will gladly answer the three questions which he has, quite reasonably, put to me.
First, the reason for the delay is that, during the period, it has been necessary to define exactly the nature of the privileges required for this particular Commission. Secondly, it is true that the


Commission has already been operating. It has operated in Cyprus, under special legislation passed by the Governor. We therefore want to extend that so that, when the Commission meets in other conditions, it will be covered.
So far as a consolidating Order is concerned. I think that it would also be conducive to the peace of mind of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there could be one Order instead of the large number to which he had to refer. I cannot give an exact indication of what is likely to transpire, but what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said obviously contains a great deal of sense. I have no doubt that the position will be closely examined in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) (Amendment) Order, 1958, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 3rd April.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Treasury to give assistance under section four of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, for reducing unemployment in localities suffering from a high rate of unemployment, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums which, under section eleven of the said Act of 1945, are authorised to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament or required to be paid into the Exchequer as may be attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling assistance to be given under the said section four for the purpose aforesaid.

Resolution agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Robert Carr added to the Select Committee on Estimates.—[Mr. Wills.]

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, DALMUIR (TRANSFER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: The matter I wish to put before the House and the Parliamentary Secre-

tary to the Ministry of Supply tonight is a very important one for the Burgh of Clydebank. A great deal of discontent has been created in the Burgh by what has occurred in the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir, and also by what has been done in legislation passed through the House. When the Parliamentary Secretary was at the factory he made it quite plain—I agreed with him at the time, and still do—that for this factory to be an economic proposition it should employ between 3,000 and 5,000 workpeople. It is a huge plant and can carry these people. Economically, a factory of that size, costing, I believe, £10 million to £11 million, requires adequate capital equipment to employ 3,000 to 5,000 workers.
By the action of the Ministry of Supply, the factory is in process of being transferred to a company which has stated in Clydebank, to the people employed in the factory, that it is likely to employ about 900 people. Like the Parliamentary Secretary, I am a production engineer, and I know full well that if the factory is handed over on ordinary commercial, economic terms, it will be impossible for that company to make it a profitable proposition if it is able only to put 900 people on the floor of the factory. Furthermore, very few of the established skilled personnel of the factory will be needed among the 900. Perhaps no more than 40 or 50 of the 400 or 500 top-grade skilled, established men will be wanted. The remainder will be declared redundant.
There is considerable discontent in Clydebank, because in the factory the men have been informed that on behalf of the Ministry the officials are quite prepared to declare a man redundant and give him his gratuity provided he takes employment, if they want him, with Babcock and Wilcox. If, however, he uses his initiative and gets employment with John Brown, Tullis's, Singer, or Albion Motors, for example, as a skilled man, he will be leaving voluntarily and will get no gratuity. That is my information. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can repudiate it.
This factory, in an area where unemployment is growing, is being transferred to a company which is closing a tube works factory on the Hillingdon trading estate. In its Renfrew factory, the company's personnel has become 150 fewer


over the last year and no new labour is being recruited and another factory is to work four days a week.
In the Royal Ordnance Factory itself, 16 machine tools, which would employ day and night shifts—perhaps 50 men—and labourers and others to feed the machines and carry stock to the machines and finished products from the machines, are being uprooted and shifted to Woolwich. That is my information. Our local newspapers saw here what appeared to be a complete absurdity, that the Ministry of Supply was uprooting capital equipment from Scotland and transferring it to England, denying employment to men who could operate the machinery in Scotland, while another Department was introducing a Bill, which, last week, was given a Second Reading, to make financial grants and loans to industrialists to take capital equipment to Scotland to utilise the unemployed labour. This seems to us to be absolutely crazy. The Government's right hand does not appear to know what their left hand is doing.
It may be that journalists in Scotland are quick to seize what is happening and that our Press is outspoken. Scotsmen are very outspoken, although I am not a Scotsman, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This position has been pinpointed and the people of Clydebank think that the Government are crazy. They uproot these machine tools, send them South, close a factory to save the taxpayers' money and the next thing they do is to spend the taxpayers' money to get private industrialists to take equipment up to Scotland again.
There must be an answer to such a stupid situation. The Clyde is an area where unemployment is increasing. Furthermore, Babcock and Wilcox has already stated that its orders have dwindled. I am aware that here is a process of transfer going on by phasing. I agree that there is no other way in which one can transfer one factory to another company, except by phasing. I have been in this process of phasing myself. I remember being the first toolmaker to go from the tool room of one big factory to another big factory, among 1,000 employees in the company, when we were taking over. I was there for fourteen months before we had the final take-over, so I appreciate the phasing process.
But it has been said that there has been no final settlement in the terms of transfer of this factory. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but if it is, this company is in process of phasing prior to final take-over next January. It is phasing at a rapid pace, bringing its own labour from Renfrew into the factory; it is uprooting Ministry of Supply equipment, taking over different sections of the factory, and doing this before there is complete and final agreement on every detail of the terms of transfer.
In all my experience in industry I have never known anyone agree to a first step being taken into the property until every detail had been signed and settled, because once one starts phasing into a plant, and getting in, one is in a very strong position. I would be surprised if it is a fact that everything has been legally tied up on every detail before this phasing started—and I shall expect an answer to that question from the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Ministry has agreed to put into the factory, right up to the period of January, as much civil work as it can.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman: if it is a fact that Babcock and Wilcox only want a part of this factory, and if it is to work only 900 men, there is no reason why the Ministry of Supply should not retain those elements of this factory with these machine tools, which could be used for the manufacture of atomic energy equipment pressure vessels for the Atomic Energy Authority, or the three big companies that are to work on atomic energy.
Why cannot these men be used in Scotland, instead of transferring them to England? Why cannot they be used for work on British Railways, in the mines, electricity, or the steel industry? I am sure that plenty of work could be provided for them through the Ministry, rather than that they should be uprooted from their homes in Clydebank and have to move elsewhere into England. They have been told time and again that not one of them can be placed under the Ministry of Supply in Scotland. They all have to come down South, at the same time as the Government are passing through the House legislation to encourage private industry to move into these areas where there is persistent unemployment.
The movement from Scotland to south of the Border is getting absurd. More


than 12,000 skilled engineers left Scotland to come down here last year, with a population of 10 million to 12 million in only a few square miles. With this happening, the unemployment danger becomes greater, because of the loss of skilled men. Yet here is a Department of State taking an action which takes more skilled men from Scotland, and which enhances the possibility of a rise in the unemployment rate among semiskilled and unskilled men.
With the Government passing legislation and giving grants and loans to private industry to stimulate employment in Scotland, a Department of State like the Ministry of Supply should do everything in its power to take up and employ in its own establishments highly skilled men whose families will be uprooted if the Government's proposals ar implemented. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into the proposed transfer of this factory again and consider whether it is possible to limit the transfer, so that part of the factory can be retained by the Ministry of Supply to provide much needed hardware for the Services. It is a Government establishment and the Ministry of Supply is in a position to give it orders; and even with our reduced defence programme there must be plenty of work which could be provided for these men to prevent their machinery having to be taken to Woolwich and then asking them to follow it. That seems to me socially and economically stupid.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer some of the propositions which I have put to him, which are based on the information which has been given to me.

11.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), as is his custom, has made the best possible case he can for his constituents, but it is not a very strong one, principally because the information upon which he has based his arguments is almost entirely contrary to the real facts.
My first official visit after I was appointed to my present post at the Ministry of Supply was to the Royal Ordnance Factory, at Dalmuir. One might aptly describe it as a "baptism of fire". Those who know the Clyde-

side will appreciate that a person who visits it will find that his objective is closely examined by the people on the spot. I received a thorough baptism on the full day which I spent at this factory.
I met the Chairman and members of the General Council of the Scottish T.U.C. and also the factory shop stewards and representatives of the non-industrial staff at this factory. I therefore made an early acquaintance with the problems and difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has been discussing, and since then I have kept in very close touch with the situation as it has developed at Dalmuir.
The decision to transfer this factory to Babcock and Wilcox was announced by my right hon. Friend in the House on 15th July. This decision, and the other changes affecting Royal Ordnance Factories which were announced at that time, was the outcome of the new pattern of defence policy. With the big reductions in the size of the Armed Forces it was clear that the requirements of the Services for conventional armaments, for which this factory is equipped, would be very much smaller than they have been since the time of the Korean rearmament programme.
Nothing has happened since last summer to alter the situation in Dalmuir. Indeed, taking the gun carriage and tank group of factories as a whole, the position now is worse than it was then regarding future orders for the Services. As the plans of the Service Departments have been worked out in greater detail it has become clear that even after making the reductions announced last year the capacity of the remaining ordnance factories will still be considerably greater than we shall require to meet future defence needs, so far as we can foresee them. Hence the further announcement made by my right hon. Friend recently, of the closure of Cardiff, the accelerated closure of Wigan, and reductions at Woolwich and Nottingham.
The great concentration of defence work is, I believe, generally recognised and accepted, and I do not think that anyone would suggest that we should go on turning out arms which are no longer required. The issue at Dalrnuir, therefore, resolved itself into the question: what should be done with the factory? The hon. Gentleman has made


considerable play with the suggestion that we should turn over the factory to the production of civil goods under our own management. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that our policy on civil work was on these lines. He said:
… civil work will be accepted when it helps to keep in being management and labour needed for defence, or when the facilities available supplement a shortage of capacity in industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 760.]
It is not our intention to set up substantial new factories for undertaking civil work, nor to keep whole factories in operation on this basis.
There is no doubt that the bodies most able to exploit civil markets are those already in the business. We already obtain a small amount of work from some of them to supplement their own resources, but not on such a scale as to keep whole factories in action. If, on the other hand, we were to try to enter the field on this scale ourselves, without relying on firms already in established lines of business, we should have to build up a large sales organisation, obtain the use of designs, and try to overtake the market experience that others have spent years in acquiring. To do this would be to stake the future of redundant factories on the chance of success of a singularly difficult enterprise, the outcome of which, to say the least, would be very doubtful.
At best, it would be a long time before we should be in a position to restore the activity of the factory. It would provide no solution for the immediate difficulties of our employees, and have nothing to do with the purpose for which the Royal Ordnance Factories are maintained. I hope, therefore, that I can make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite impracticable for the Government to retain the Dalmuir factory on this basis; and we have no intention of doing so. The decision to dispose of it must stand, because it is the only sensible and practicable course.
The hon. Member referred to the facts surrounding the transfer of the factory to Babcock and Wilcox, and to judge by some of his remarks I doubt whether he fully appreciates how fortunate it is from the point of view of the workpeople that we were able to arrange for the transfer of this factory to such a firm. It is

a very large factory, capable of employing well over its present labour force, as the hon. Gentleman said, and only a very substantial and expanding industrial concern like Babcock and Wilcox would be in a position to take it over bodily and to offer new employment to a large number of the workpeople. I shall have something more to say about numbers in a moment. I only wish that I could be confident of finding an equally satisfactory solution for some of our other factories which are available for disposal in various parts of the country at this time.
I want to say a word about the arrangements that we have made for the takeover. If we can take up the point which the hon. Member raised in passing, about the terms of the take-over, in a very large transaction like this the first and most important thing that the parties have to strive for is an agreement in principle. If that agreement is arrived at, and the financial terms of the lease are defined clearly and accepted by both parties, it is not necessary to work out every little detail in the lease or the agreement before we start to move in or make arrangements for the take-over. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not so remiss in our duty to the taxpayers as to allow any loose arrangements to obtain in a situation like this.
We have been making great efforts to ensure that the transfer takes place as smoothly as possible. The labour force is at present engaged mainly on the production of Conqueror tanks. This work will be completed by the end of this year. As the tanks come off the line, we have no military orders to replace them. Employment can, therefore, be maintained only by gradually introducing the new work that the factory will eventually be employed on. Our aim, and that of the Babcock and Wilcox management, is to introduce new work so as to dovetail with the rundown of the Service orders. Surely this is the only reasonable and practicable policy.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the poster which the firm of Babcock and Wilcox has put up in its Renfrew factory, its main establishment. There are some very important statements in it. It describes how the firm hopes that the changeover can be


effected gradually and smoothly, and goes on:
… work which, in the main, is outwith our Renfrew capacity, has been sub-contracted to Dalmuir.
It goes on:
In addition, with the agreement of the Ministry of Supply, we have commenced manufacture there, under our own supervision, of certain work of which Dalmuir has no previous experience. Initially, this consists of components for the Hinckley Point Atomic Power Station.
It also says:
The object in acquiring the Dalmuir Works is to increase the output of the company by employing more men. This will be achieved by selecting products not now being manufactured at Renfrew, together with a much greater output of cranes, materials handling equipment, and special vessels for the oil and chemical industries.
The statement, which is dated 1st May, 1958, concludes:
In general, the work undertaken at Dalmuir is such that it provides additional work for men employed in most departments at Renfrew.
It will, of course, stimulate employment at Dalmuir as well.
Although Babcock and Wilcox's lease of the factory does not become operative until 1st January next year, we shall be managing the factory jointly with it until that date. This will ensure continuity of management and should help to make the transition as easy as possible. Babcock and Wilcox has set up an employment office at the factory to assist the workpeople in considering offers of employment, and as it introduces its own work in the way I have just described, so opportunities arise for our employees to transfer to Babcock and Wilcox.
There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made that a gratuity is dependent upon acceptance of employment with Babcock and Wilcox. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury announced last week a new code relating to gratuity payments to established employees which is a great improvement on what prevailed before the statement was made. No conditions like those suggested by the hon. Gentleman are attached to it. If an established employee finds that he cannot move for reasons of personal domestic inconvenience, or whatever it may be, he can

take another job and have the new and improved gratuity at the same time. He is not in the position, as the hon. Gentleman said, of having to make a great sacrifice.
If Babcock and Wilcox did not begin to take over until after defence work is completed at the end of the year, there would be a complete shut-down of the factory of from six to eight weeks. At the best, therefore, those people who wished to transfer would have to wait that period before work could be found for them, but many would have to leave long before the end of the year because, as the armament work runs down, we have no other work for the factory. Workpeople would, therefore, be discharged by degrees as the military order is completed.
I hope that there will be no misunderstanding about this. This has had to happen at other factories. It is by far the simplest arrangement from the purely managerial point of view and it is by no means an easy task to attempt to dovetail the introduction of new work into the decline of the old.
Under the new arrangements, to which I have referred, concerning gratuity payment, an established man who wishes to leave the Government service and find employment in the same area may, like his unestablished colleagues, now claim a termination payment calculated according to his length of service. The established man is now much more happily placed and we hope that the new arrangements will make for a smoother takeover of labour by Babcock & Wilcox.
At no other factory have we so far been able to make arrangements for disposal so far in advance of the ending of military production and so calculated to ease the redeployment problems of the redundant workpeople. This has been our main object throughout. We are making great efforts to ensure that the transition takes place smoothly and I earnestly appeal for co-operation with us, from the hon. Member and all those whom he represents, to ensure that it is brought to a successful conclusion

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.